President G.W. Bush record

[Robert A Whit]

I don't get why some claim he was a bad president.

By many standards, he did very well.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/bushrecord/factsheets/taxrelief.html#


President Bush Helped Americans Through Tax Relief
President Bush Trusted Americans With Their Hard-Earned Money, Providing $1.7 Trillion In Relief Through 2008President Bush demonstrated that letting people keep more of their own money leads to economic growth. In 2001, America was experiencing the unprecedented triple shock of a recession following the dot-com bust, economic disruption due to the terrorist attacks of September 11, and corporate accounting scandals. Fortunately, the country was able to overcome these challenges, in part because President Bush's tax relief put more money in families' pockets and encouraged businesses to grow and invest. Following the President's 2003 tax relief, the United States had 52 months of uninterrupted job growth, the longest run on record.
President Bush Signed The Largest Tax Relief In A Generation
President Bush's tax cuts provided $1.7 trillion in relief through 2008. President Bush worked with Congress to reduce the tax burden on American families and small businesses to spur savings, investment, and job creation.
In 2001, President Bush proposed and signed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. This legislation:


Reduced tax rates for every American who pays income taxes, including creating a new 10 percent tax bracket
Doubled the child tax credit to $1,000 by 2010
Reduced the marriage penalty beginning in 2005
Put the death tax on the road to extinction
Increased education tax benefits
Increased limits on IRA and 401(k) contributions and changed limits on defined benefit pension plans – which were made permanent in the Pension Protection Act of 2006

In 2003, President Bush proposed and signed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. This legislation:


Reduced the top tax rate on dividends and capital gains to 15 percent
Accelerated income tax rate reductions
Accelerated the expansion of the 10 percent bracket
Accelerated the increase of the child credit to $1,000
Accelerated the reduction in the marriage penalty
Quadrupled small business expensing from $25,000 to $100,000
Increased bonus depreciation for businesses to 50 percent through 2004

President Bush's Tax Relief Allowed Americans To Keep Trillions Of Dollars Of Their Own Money
Results of the President's tax relief were swift. The economy returned to growth in the fourth quarter of 2001 and continued to grow for 24 consecutive quarters. The economy grew at a rapid pace of 7.5 percent above inflation during the third quarter of 2003 – the highest since 1984. The President's tax relief reduced the marginal effective tax rate on new investment, which encourages additional investment and, in the long-term, higher wages for workers.


In 2007, a family of four earning $40,000 saved an average of $2,053 thanks to the President's tax relief.

The President's tax relief was followed by increases in tax revenue. From 2005 to 2007, tax revenues grew faster than the economy. The ratio of receipts to GDP rose to 18.8 percent in 2007, above the 40-year average. Between 2004 and 2006, capital gains realizations grew by approximately 60 percent. Growth in corporate income tax receipts was especially strong in the President's second term, nearly doubling between 2004 and 2007 and contributing a full percentage point to the increase in the total federal receipts-to-GDP share.
The President's tax relief has shifted a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher-income taxpayers. With nearly all of the tax relief provisions fully in effect, the President's tax relief reduced the share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers from 3.9 percent in 2000 to 3.1 percent in 2005, the latest year of available data, while increasing the share paid by the top 10 percent from 46.0 to 46.4 percent.
President Bush Led The Response To The Financial Crisis Of 2008
This unprecedented economic growth was ended by the turbulence in the housing and credit markets, to which the President responded with bold action. President Bushaddressed the weakness in the economy early in 2008 by leading the bipartisan passage of an economic growth package that boosted consumer spending and encouraged businesses to expand, returning more than $96 billion to Americans. When the financial crisis intensified, President Bush led the passage and implementation of a rescue plan that helped address the root of the financial crisis, protected the deposits of individuals and small businesses, and helped enable credit to remain available to individuals and families. Moreover, he convened a summit with the leaders of the G-20 nations to discuss efforts to strengthen economic growth, deal with the financial crisis, reaffirm a commitment to free market principles, and lay the foundation for reform to help ensure that a similar crisis does not happen again.


The Administration warned of the risk that government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac posed to America's financial security beginning in 2001. President Bush's first budget warned that "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets." In 2003, the Administration began calling for a new GSE regulator. Despite resistance from Congress, President Bush continued to call for GSE reform until Congress finally acted in 2008 to provide the additional oversight the President requested five years earlier. Unfortunately, the reform came too late to prevent systemic consequences.

[gabosaurus]

Oh, he was a wonderful president. Consider his record of allowing the country to be attacked, starting an illegal and immoral war based on false claims that Iraq had WMDs, and enacting legislation that removed basic civil rights from people. In addition to eight years of lying to the American people.
Yep, quite wonderful. :lame2:

[jimnyc]

^ Some things need no replies, as the regurgitated rhetoric and falsehoods speak for themselves.

[revelarts]

Don't get me started here folks,
Please, i want to go to bed early.

[Robert A Whit]

Oh, he was a wonderful president. Consider his record of allowing the country to be attacked, starting an illegal and immoral war based on false claims that Iraq had WMDs, and enacting legislation that removed basic civil rights from people. In addition to eight years of lying to the American people.
Yep, quite wonderful. :lame2:

I was going down that list and at least one thing you said is correct. The sentence where you said he was wonderful. The rest of the statements are just bull poop.

Really, that is all it was. I get tired of telling democrats the truth on thoss matters. They won't listen.

Bear in mind, they put the present liar in office.

[jimnyc]

Don't get me started here folks,
Please, i want to go to bed early.

Yes, folks, please don't get Rev started!! :poke: :laugh2:

[revelarts]

Oh, he was a wonderful president. Consider his record of allowing the country to be attacked, starting an illegal and immoral war based on false claims that Iraq had WMDs, and enacting legislation that removed basic civil rights from people. In addition to eight years of lying to the American people.
Yep, quite wonderful. :lame2:

"starting an illegal and immoral war based on false claims that Iraq had WMDs"
100% true, well establish by several, including British inquirers , where the evidence is clear and the witnesses admit as much. and produce the evidence. Cover your ears and say it aint so all you want it's a fact.

"enacting legislation (and executive orders) that removed basic civil (constitutional) rights from people,"
100% true, warrantless wire tapping, warrantless searches, indefinite incarceration without charges or trials...
His administration publically gutted the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments and Obama promised to bring them back but, surprise surprise ,he hasn't.

Gab didn't mention
Bringing torture out of the CIA Closet and baptizing as legal.
Kiddnapping and exporting people to foreign secret prisons, (well Clinton started that really Bush just amped it up)
The Wall Street bail outs, and not prosecuting wall st crooks,
Increasing the size of gov't
the TSA
too name the most obvious

And I Voted for him both times(2nd time holding my nose)to my shame and regret.the best thing i can say he did, imo, was hold back some crazy abortion legislation that came down the pipe.

good night

[CSM]

I doubt Bush enacted any legislation at all. He may have signed it into law once passed by CONGRESS though. I am merely pointing out that the libs seem to forget that their elected representatives had a hand in everything Bush supposedly did to include FUNDING his every effort. Rather inconvenient factoid for libs, eh?

[glockmail]

I wonder if Gabs has any idea that The Obama furthered Bush's policies that she despises.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I doubt Bush enacted any legislation at all. He may have signed it into law once passed by CONGRESS though. I am merely pointing out that the libs seem to forget that their elected representatives had a hand in everything Bush supposedly did to include FUNDING his every effort. Rather inconvenient factoid for libs, eh?

LIES, all LIES!

Bush did everything by EO, and signing statements. The liberals in Congress and the Senate NEVER went along with a single thing he did!

(end sarcasm)

[tailfins]

Oh, he was a wonderful president. Consider his record of allowing the country to be attacked, starting an illegal and immoral war based on false claims that Iraq had WMDs, and enacting legislation that removed basic civil rights from people. In addition to eight years of lying to the American people.
Yep, quite wonderful. :lame2:

That's right, 9/11 was an inside job and explosives were found at the levee in NOLA after Katrina made landfall. Just ask Louis Farrakhan.

You may have SOME justification regarding the Patriot Act, if you are willing to acknowledge that Obama doubled down on what Bush started.

[red states rule]

Oh, he was a wonderful president. Consider his record of allowing the country to be attacked, starting an illegal and immoral war based on false claims that Iraq had WMDs, and enacting legislation that removed basic civil rights from people. In addition to eight years of lying to the American people.
Yep, quite wonderful. :lame2:

Yes Gabby we all know you have an irrational hate for Pres. Bush (and anyone who has a different opinion on the role and size of government) Amazing how you love and adore Obama even though he has carried on many of the Bush policies and has taken spending to higher levels

[red states rule]

"starting an illegal and immoral war based on false claims that Iraq had WMDs"
100% true, well establish by several, including British inquirers , where the evidence is clear and the witnesses admit as much. and produce the evidence. Cover your ears and say it aint so all you want it's a fact.

"enacting legislation (and executive orders) that removed basic civil (constitutional) rights from people,"
100% true, warrantless wire tapping, warrantless searches, indefinite incarceration without charges or trials...
His administration publically gutted the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments and Obama promised to bring them back but, surprise surprise ,he hasn't.

Gab didn't mention
Bringing torture out of the CIA Closet and baptizing as legal.
Kiddnapping and exporting people to foreign secret prisons, (well Clinton started that really Bush just amped it up)
The Wall Street bail outs, and not prosecuting wall st crooks,
Increasing the size of gov't
the TSA
too name the most obvious

And I Voted for him both times(2nd time holding my nose)to my shame and regret.the best thing i can say he did, imo, was hold back some crazy abortion legislation that came down the pipe.

good night


Yea, killing terrorisst, keeping America safe, and fighting fire with fire. Wow, what an outrage Rev

[revelarts]

Yea, killing terrorists, keeping America safe, and fighting fire with fire. Wow, what an outrage Rev

Terrorist weren't in Iraq, neither were WMDs
Gutting the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments is safety?
Bailing out wall st is fighting fire?
TSA's hands down grandmas panties is an outrage RSR.

Obama's just as bad or worse but Bush did his part,
I'm just calling it like i see it.

[aboutime]

Don't get me started here folks,
Please, i want to go to bed early.


rev. You can do all of us a huge favor and just go to bed, and stay there. Nobody wants to hear you get started. We all know it would be worthless to the rest of us anyhow.

[red states rule]

Terrorist weren't in Iraq, neither were WMDs
Gutting the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments is safety?
Bailing out wall st is fighting fire?
TSA's hands down grandmas panties is an outrage RSR.

Obama's just as bad or worse but Bush did his part,
I'm just calling it like i see it.

Eh terrorists were in Iraq and Saddam was funding terror groups Rev. Last I checked terrorists are NOT covered under the US Constitution. As far as TSA I agree. We should PROFILE like Israel does. Of course then we have the F'n ACLU bitching and whining.

[aboutime]

Oh, he was a wonderful president. Consider his record of allowing the country to be attacked, starting an illegal and immoral war based on false claims that Iraq had WMDs, and enacting legislation that removed basic civil rights from people. In addition to eight years of lying to the American people.
Yep, quite wonderful. :lame2:



Gabby. Once again. You prove you are so full of crap. Even your BROWN EYES have BROWN EYES.

So now that you've once again made a complete fool of yourself. How bout sharing your knowledge, and telling us Exactly WHAT CIVIL RIGHTS you no longer have as an American. Then...we'll all know.

Oh, and please tell us what RIGHTS you lost because of Bush.

Make it interesting. And it will be a CHALLENGE for you, since you cannot PROVE a Lie.

[red states rule]

Gabby. Once again. You prove you are so full of crap. Even your BROWN EYES have BROWN EYES.

So now that you've once again made a complete fool of yourself. How bout sharing your knowledge, and telling us Exactly WHAT CIVIL RIGHTS you no longer have as an American. Then...we'll all know.

Oh, and please tell us what RIGHTS you lost because of Bush.

Make it interesting. And it will be a CHALLENGE for you, since you cannot PROVE a Lie.

In Gabby's world he committed 2 unforgivable acts. He defeated 2 libs who the left believed were entitled to be President. AND he proved tax cuts generate MORE revenue to the government. To Gabby these are unforgivable actions

[jimnyc]

Terrorist weren't in Iraq, neither were WMDs
Gutting the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments is safety?
Bailing out wall st is fighting fire?
TSA's hands down grandmas panties is an outrage RSR.

Obama's just as bad or worse but Bush did his part,
I'm just calling it like i see it.

It may not have been the smoking gun that many wanted to see, but WMD's were in fact found. They were smaller, and in some instances outdated, others were not, but some were in fact found. We just never found the massive stockpiles as it was described.

[red states rule]

It may not have been the smoking gun that many wanted to see, but WMD's were in fact found. They were smaller, and in some instances outdated, others were not, but some were in fact found. We just never found the massive stockpiles as it was described.

Jim many believe the WMD Saddam had went to Syria. In fact a former General for Saddam said as much.

[Robert A Whit]

Points.

1. Gabby and her followers, such as Revlarts should study some books.
a. An American Soldier by Gen. Tommy Franks. Franks debunks the myth that our side knew there was no WMD. However WMD was not the major cause though the law passed by Clinton claimed WMD was the major factor.
b. A General speaks out by Gen Mike DeLong. He also debunks Democrats myths.

I have studied a number of books on the topic of Iraq and Afghanistan to find the truth.

Bush gave a good account in his book. Cheney also did. So did Rumsfeld.
Paul Bremer also helped me a lot.

2. No, Democrats don't know what they are talking about. Why do you think they supported Obama?

3. Some have already pointed out that Obama stuck to the Bush plans and of course so far I want them to admit Obama has got a lot of our men killed in combat.

I noticed once Obama won, the media suddenly ignored the numbers of men killed.

[aboutime]

In Gabby's world he committed 2 unforgivable acts. He defeated 2 libs who the left believed were entitled to be President. AND he proved tax cuts generate MORE revenue to the government. To Gabby these are unforgivable actions


red states rule. Gabby probably still believes 4339would have been a wonderful Idiot...I mean President, considering his GLOBAL WARMING Hoax, and the sale of his TV network to representatives of Hate like 4340 that despises Americans.

[glockmail]

Terrorist weren't in Iraq, neither were WMDs
...

The connection between OBL and Saddam is well documented. Most of the WMDs were shipped to Syria during the initial stages of our invasion by the east and south, since our agreement to advance through Syria was changed at the last minute. Why do you think Syria reneged if not to ship WMDs in the same corridors that we had planned to invade through?

[revelarts]

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UzkR1yvIRHA?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?36155-Syria-s-WMD-s-could-someday-be-used-here-on-us&p=567395#post567395


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?36171-Iraq-War-Wasn-t-A-Failure&p=567712#post567712

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29618-My-My-It-Seems-Wikileaks-Also-Show-That-All-Those-Intelligence-Agencies-Were-Right&p=448027#post448027
white house meos
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iIxcT8SLDiw?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>
Downing st memos


<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bkUxW3JqTUA?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Terrorist weren't in Iraq, neither were WMDs
Gutting the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments is safety?
Bailing out wall st is fighting fire?
TSA's hands down grandmas panties is an outrage RSR.

Obama's just as bad or worse but Bush did his part,
I'm just calling it like i see it.

My friend, if you can not see that obama is many , many, many times worse that Bush then you need some serious help. DATS DA TRUFF TWO... ;)--Tyr

[jimnyc]

That's all ya got, Rev? I thought for sure you would be back with 22 links and 45 videos. You're slacking!!! LOL Just busting on you, if anything, it's a compliment in how thorough you can be, even if I may sometimes disagree with the content. And no, I didn't read any of those links or videos. My brain can't afford a good debate on this issue right now! :beer:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Points.

1. Gabby and her followers, such as Revlarts should study some books.



That's wicked my friend. Gabby couldn't match the REV IN INTELLIGENCE IF SHE STUDIED DILIGENTLY EVERYDAY
FOR A THOUSAND YEARS!
A low blow you struck the REV with right there. Got to disagree with it on general principle and the fact that Rev would never be a follower of the Gabmaster..
I GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE AMIGO.. -Tyr

[aboutime]

That's all ya got, Rev? I thought for sure you would be back with 22 links and 45 videos. You're slacking!!! LOL Just busting on you, if anything, it's a compliment in how thorough you can be, even if I may sometimes disagree with the content. And no, I didn't read any of those links or videos. My brain can't afford a good debate on this issue right now! :beer:


jimnyc. To be honest with you here. I am confused how someone like rev..."IRONIC OXYMORON" can carry so much hatred around for so long, based on false information, opinions, and made up facts.

Almost like asking Billy Graham if he reads PLAYBOY.

[Robert A Whit]

Tyr my friend

I did not say Revlarts is not intelligent.

If one can find material as he does, it is a sign he is a crack above avg in that department. Gabby is a pure propaganda artist.

To me, on GW Bush, Revlarts is a product of what he read as I am. I however read the right stuff. He read what the left wingers offered him.

As some say, Obama merely kept the same foreign policy as Bush anyway except that I don't think Bush would have tripled the troops in Afghanistan. I may be wrong on that one. But it is just my opinion.

[revelarts]

jimnyc. To be honest with you here. I am confused how someone like rev..."IRONIC OXYMORON" can carry so much hatred around for so long, based on false information, opinions, and made up facts.
Almost like asking Billy Graham if he reads PLAYBOY.

Well we agree on this much, somebodys' been doing some lying.
If you read what i've posted you might at least see that it's not just random Democrats just talking out of the backsides.
We already know President can lie, putting an R behind them doesn't change that.

As far as hate goes well I don't want to hate Bush, but just seeing how many people he and Cheney Bamboozled ,me included , and had killed over BS does piss me off.

Clinton was a sleeze ball and had people killed around him and had folk killed in Kosovo and in Iraq. But WBush took it to another level, Now Obama, your Right Tyr, He is worse. Killing Americans without trial, invading countries on his on say so only. Drone bombing countries without a declaration of war as well. Obama care, MORE wiretapping, More Gov't Whistle blower prosecutions, more bail outs and easing, he's worse. But not by orders of magnitude, just doubled. Bush senior -I voted for him too- was a drug dealing creep, stabbed one of his drug partners in the back, Noreiga, (i can back that up with 45 links and 32 videos but i'm sleepy;)) .

We've had a run of corrupt Presidents that puts some 3rd world countries to shame IMO. But frankly for a long time i was too patriotic/naive to believe it could really be as bad as it is. I understand the incredulity you guys have, I didn't want to believe it either, ...'it's conspiracy talk', i thought it was all so funny... . I thought 'of course the democrats will arm China behind our backs but not the Republicans.... the democrats are just lying about their misdeeds, Republicans love America and the military the constitution And God, they said so...'.
Yeah well, maybe maybe not.
There's plenty i don't know but Benefit of the doubt only goes so far, What does the evidence honestly show, all of the evidence?

[aboutime]

Well we agree on this much, somebodys' been doing some lying.
If you read what i've posted you might at least see that it's not just random Democrats just talking out of the backsides.
We already know President can lie, putting an R behind them doesn't change that.

As far as hate goes well I don't want to hate Bush, but just seeing how many people he and Cheney Bamboozled ,me included , and had killed over BS does piss me off.

Clinton was a sleeze ball and had people killed around him and had folk killed in Kosovo and in Iraq. But WBush took it to another level, Now Obama, your Right Tyr, He is worse. Killing Americans without trial, invading countries on his on say so only. Drone bombing countries without a declaration of war as well. Obama care, MORE wiretapping, More Gov't Whistle blower prosecutions, more bail outs and easing, he's worse. But not by orders of magnitude, just doubled. Bush senior -I voted for him too- was a drug dealing creep, stabbed one of his drug partners in the back, Noreiga, (i can back that up with 45 links and 32 videos but i'm sleepy;)) .

We've had a run of corrupt Presidents that puts some 3rd world countries to shame IMO. But frankly for a long time i was too patriotic/naive to believe it could really be as bad as it is. I understand the incredulity you guys have, I didn't want to believe it either, ...'it's conspiracy talk', i thought it was all so funny... . I thought 'of course the democrats will arm China behind our backs but not the Republicans.... the democrats are just lying about their misdeeds, Republicans love America and the military the constitution And God, they said so...'.
Yeah well, maybe maybe not.
There's plenty i don't know but Benefit of the doubt only goes so far, What does the evidence honestly show, all of the evidence?


rev. For as long as I have been posting on the Internet at political Forums like this. I can honestly say. NOT ONE person, from either side of the political aisle has EVER proven that George W. Bush EVER LIED to the American people about WMD's, or Iraq.

Yes. There are countless opinions based on hate. And as many Conspiracy theories as well since Sept 11th, 2001. But still. NOT YOU, or anyone else has ever HONESTLY proven, with documented, verifiable, proven accuracy, or opinions by quacks...that BUSH or CHENEY ever lied about those things.

So. I will give you the opportunity to...as they say "Put your money where your mouth is", and prove, without using conjecture, opinions, or typical excuses that do not stand the test of Honesty...that George W. Bush, or Cheney lied to you, or the American people.
And. When you finish. If you can Honestly.
You may also wish to prove that Obama hasn't been lying to all of us since long before he became the PRETENDER.

[tailfins]

That's wicked my friend. Gabby couldn't match the REV IN INTELLIGENCE IF SHE STUDIED DILIGENTLY EVERYDAY
FOR A THOUSAND YEARS!
A low blow you struck the REV with right there. Got to disagree with it on general principle and the fact that Rev would never be a follower of the Gabmaster..
I GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE AMIGO.. -Tyr

I would become a follower of the Gabmaster just to pi$$ you off.

[revelarts]

...Iraq dossier drawn up to make case for war – intelligence officer
Newly released evidence to Chilcot inquiry directly contradicts Blair government's claims about dossier


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/12/iraq-dossier-case-for-war

A
... top military intelligence official has said the discredited dossier on Iraq's weapons programme was drawn up "to make the case for war", flatly contradicting persistent claims to the contrary by the Blair government, and in particular by Alastair Campbell, the former prime minister's chief spin doctor.

In hitherto secret evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, Major General Michael Laurie said: "We knew at the time that the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care."...



http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31057-WAR-for-Oil-Brits-haggle-BP-s-cut-memos-revel&p=467293&highlight=british+iraq#post467293


for the record

[glockmail]

Read "The Connection" by Stephen Hayes, then get back to me.

[Drummond]

Terrorist weren't in Iraq, neither were WMDs
Gutting the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments is safety?
Bailing out wall st is fighting fire?
TSA's hands down grandmas panties is an outrage RSR.

Obama's just as bad or worse but Bush did his part,
I'm just calling it like i see it.

Terrorists weren't in Iraq ? What about Saddam giving sanctuary to Zarqawi, then ?

And what about Saddam's bankrolling of Hamas ?

Saddam was a terrorist supporter - FACT. So ... therefore, NOT a legitimate target for the War on Terror ... ???? :cuckoo:

As for WMD's ... allowing the UN unfettered access to the whole of Iraq, without ANY games-playing WHATEVER, might've been convincing. Instead, tell me, how many UN Resolutions did Saddam defy on the issue, and over how long a period ???

There was talk of WMD's being shipped to Syria, and as we all know, there's a concern about Syrian rebels getting their hands on them. But tell me ... what evidence can you supply regarding where they came from ? Can you show me they did NOT originally come from Iraq ?

I can't speak about Bush's record as President on US domestic issues with any great confidence. But, as for his initiative in fighting the War on Terror .. that, for me, makes him one of the all-time GREATS amongst all the Presidents the US has produced.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I would become a follower of the Gabmaster just to pi$$ you off.

Well, what's holding you back. Have at it.. if you can stomach the taste..
Wouldn't piss me off because another person agreeing with her liberal ffed up worldview wouldn't legitimize
the CRAP THAT SHE SO OFTEN SPEWS FORTH HERE.
HELL, SHE HAS MILLIONS OF LIB-IDIOTS THAT AGREE WITH HER , DOESN'T CHANGE THE TRUTH ONE IOTA.-Tyr

[Drummond]

Oh, he was a wonderful president. Consider his record of allowing the country to be attacked, starting an illegal and immoral war based on false claims that Iraq had WMDs, and enacting legislation that removed basic civil rights from people. In addition to eight years of lying to the American people.
Yep, quite wonderful. :lame2:

... wow. Congratulations, Gabby. If you'd thought 'What can I post that will irritate Drummond the most' ... the result would've been the above post. I mean, really ...

.. WHAT A LOAD OF ROT !!!

Granted, maybe there should've been more in place to guarantee America's security, pre-9/11 (.. though, of course, the Left would've screamed blue murder had Bush actually TRIED to introduce anything ..). But after 9/11, his performance was pretty much perfect ! 'Starting an illegal and immoral war', concerning Iraq ... this is so preposterous that I wonder why I even need to express the obvious .. namely, that Saddam defied RESOLUTION after RESOLUTION to make him accountable for any WMD stocks (... because he DIDN'T have them ???), and did so for over a DECADE.

International consensus was that Saddam had a stockpile. Even many US Libs thought so. And, Gabby, what were the Kurds attacked with .. feather dusters ??

As for enacting legislation of a supposedly anti-civil rights nature ... well, how much easier a time would you have preferred terrorists to have, at your own country's expense ?? I tell you, this whole Leftie notion that, in a wartime scenario, PEACETIME conditions must prevail ... Gabby, that's insane.

[revelarts]

rev. For as long as I have been posting on the Internet at political Forums like this. I can honestly say. NOT ONE person, from either side of the political aisle has EVER proven that George W. Bush EVER LIED to the American people about WMD's, or Iraq.
Yes. There are countless opinions based on hate. And as many Conspiracy theories as well since Sept 11th, 2001. But still. NOT YOU, or anyone else has ever HONESTLY proven, with documented, verifiable, proven accuracy, or opinions by quacks...that BUSH or CHENEY ever lied about those things.
So. I will give you the opportunity to...as they say "Put your money where your mouth is", and prove, without using conjecture, opinions, or typical excuses that do not stand the test of Honesty...that George W. Bush, or Cheney lied to you, or the American people.
And. When you finish. If you can Honestly.
You may also wish to prove that Obama hasn't been lying to all of us since long before he became the PRETENDER.
AT from your above i can only guess that the only evidence you'll accept are sign confessions by Bush, Chenney and Rumsfeld.
If you look back at my post links and listen to the videos you'll see plenty of evidence. CIA Assets and agents, Pentagon staff, FBI Staff, White house Staff, memos from meetings in the White house and in Britain. And Colon Powells Chief of staff says pretty Flatly that Cheney and Rumsfield Lied to Powell.
I'm not sure what you're talking about as far as PROVEN evidence goes,
I'll ask you to put up as much evidence about any of the instances Obama's lies.
I could use the same lame dodges to defend him you guys uses to defend Bush. "So and so said Obama didn't lie, it was a mistake" PROVE it with documented, verifiable, proven accuracy, not all Republicans or opinions by quacks, conjecture, opinions. Would you buy that? You wouldn't even consider it.

It's just hard to see past partisan positions.




Terrorists weren't in Iraq ? What about Saddam giving sanctuary to Zarqawi, then ?
Bin Ladin was found in Pakistan, was the Pakistani leadership harboring him. hmmm?
The TalBan is Active in Afghanstan Now and the U.S. gov't pays them not to attack suplly line. Are the U.S. and British Gov'ts Giving sanctuary to the taliban insurgents then?!!

Saddam was fighting the terrorsit in his country same with Qaddafi BTW. in both cases after we invaded MORE terrorist and Alqeda flooded the country. and in Libya's case they are part of the new Gov't.



And what about Saddam's bankrolling of Hamas ?
What about Israel creating Hamas in 1st place. should we attack them for that? What about other countries that have supported Hamas. What about Saudi Arabia supporting all kinds of terrorist? should we attack them?



Saddam was a terrorist supporter - FACT. So ... therefore, NOT a legitimate target for the War on Terror ... ???? :cuckoo:
so was Saudi Arabia and Syria and Yeman, and ....
But wait Bush never went to the U.N. and ask permission to attack Iraq because it supported terrorist. it went there over WMDS.
That was THE issue. NOT it's flimsy terror ties.



As for WMD's ... allowing the UN unfettered access to the whole of Iraq, without ANY games-playing WHATEVER, might've been convincing. Instead, tell me, how many UN Resolutions did Saddam defy on the issue, and over how long a period ???
There was talk of WMD's being shipped to Syria, and as we all know, there's a concern about Syrian rebels getting their hands on them. But tell me ... what evidence can you supply regarding where they came from ? Can you show me they did NOT originally come from Iraq ?Can you show me they DID? NO you can't Drummond.
There was TALK of the Saudi Gov't having a hand in 9/11 among others. Our we just going on talk or are we working off of solid evidence.


I can't speak about Bush's record as President on US domestic issues with any great confidence. But, as for his initiative in fighting the War on Terror .. that, for me, makes him one of the all-time GREATS amongst all the Presidents the US has produced. An AGGRESSIVE pre emptive attack on a smaller nation that NEVER threatened the U.S.. An attack based on evidence that everyone agrees, was at least wrong. Makes him among the worse.

[red states rule]

Rev, you really need to let go of your hate for GWB. My God you remind me so much of Neville Chamberlain who bent over backwards to appease Hitler and ended up costing the lives of 50 million people

[Drummond]

Bin Ladin was found in Pakistan, was the Pakistani leadership harboring him. hmmm?

My response .. I don't know.

Either they were, or, they were almost unbelievably incompetent. I mean, that compound that harboured bin Laden had existed there, as it was, for YEARS .. and the intelligence trail that tipped off your authorities was itself several months in the making.


The TalBan is Active in Afghanstan Now and the U.S. gov't pays them not to attack suplly line. Are the U.S. and British Gov'ts Giving sanctuary to the taliban insurgents then?!!

I'm not happy myself with the soft line the Taliban's been getting. In the UK, there was talk of behind-the-scenes parleying with certain Taliban figures .. those the British felt they might have a future in dealing with. As for Obama ... who knows what might be going on these days. Nothing would surprise me.


Saddam was fighting the terrorsit in his country same with Qaddafi BTW. in both cases after we invaded MORE terrorist and Alqeda flooded the country. and in Libya's case they are part of the new Gov't.

Saddam only opposed terrorists when he saw it was in his interest to do so. See ...

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/index.cfm?secID=192&pageID=4&type=section

It's not as though evidence doesn't exist, revelarts ...


What about Israel creating Hamas in 1st place. should we attack them for that?

You want to attack Israel on the basis of an UNTRUTH ?? Tut tut ... see ...

http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=64336


Myth:
"Israel created Hamas."
Fact:
Israel had nothing to do with the creation of Hamas. The The organization grew out of the ideology and practice of the Islamic fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood movement that arose in Egypt in the 1920s.


Hamas was legally registered in Israel in 1978 as an Islamic Association by Sheikh Ahmad Yassin. Initially, the organization engaged primarily in social welfare activities and soon developed a reputation for improving the lives of Palestinians, particularly the refugees in the Gaza Strip.


Though Hamas was committed from the outset to destroying Israel, it took the position that this was a goal for the future, and that the more immediate focus should be on winning the hearts and minds of the people through its charitable and educational activities. Its funding came primarily from Jordan and Saudi Arabia.


The PLO was convinced that Israel was helping Hamas in the hope of triggering a civil war. Since Hamas did not engage in terror at first, Israel did not see it as a serious short-term threat, and some Israelis believed the rise of fundamentalism in Gaza would have the beneficial impact of weakening the PLO, and this is what ultimately happened.


Hamas certainly didn't believe it was being supported by Israel. As early as February 1988, the group put out a primer on how its members should behave if confronted by the Shin Bet. Several more instructional documents were distributed by Hamas to teach followers how to confront the Israelis and maintain secrecy.


What about other countries that have supported Hamas. What about Saudi Arabia supporting all kinds of terrorist? should we attack them?

You want to attack an ally of yours ?

I suggest you find evidence of the Saudi realisation that they should regard Al Qaeda as an enemy. Their opposition to Al Qaeda has grown, and now is stronger than ever.


But wait Bush never went to the U.N. and ask permission to attack Iraq because it supported terrorist. it went there over WMDS.

Yes, true, WMD's were the focus. But, why did it matter whether he had them ? Why SUCH WIDESPREAD CONCERN ?

Part of the reason was that his was such a rogue regime that he couldn't be trusted to keep them. See THIS ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations


Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations were made by U.S Government officials who claimed that a highly secretive relationship existed between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the radical Islamist militant organization Al-Qaeda from 1992 to 2003, specifically through a series of meetings reportedly involving the Iraqi Intelligence Service. In the lead up to the Iraq War, US President George W Bush alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and militant group al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States

Could this be any clearer ?

[tailfins]

Well, what's holding you back. Have at it.. if you can stomach the taste..
Wouldn't piss me off because another person agreeing with her liberal ffed up worldview wouldn't legitimize
the CRAP THAT SHE SO OFTEN SPEWS FORTH HERE.
HELL, SHE HAS MILLIONS OF LIB-IDIOTS THAT AGREE WITH HER , DOESN'T CHANGE THE TRUTH ONE IOTA.-Tyr

Well, you see that's the trick. When in a dysfunctional group it isn't necessary to agree with her point of view.

Hey Gabosaurus, I really like the grammar and spelling of your last post. See how that works?

[Robert A Whit]

Terrorists weren't in Iraq ? What about Saddam giving sanctuary to Zarqawi, then ?

And what about Saddam's bankrolling of Hamas ?

Saddam was a terrorist supporter - FACT. So ... therefore, NOT a legitimate target for the War on Terror ... ???? :cuckoo:

As for WMD's ... allowing the UN unfettered access to the whole of Iraq, without ANY games-playing WHATEVER, might've been convincing. Instead, tell me, how many UN Resolutions did Saddam defy on the issue, and over how long a period ???

There was talk of WMD's being shipped to Syria, and as we all know, there's a concern about Syrian rebels getting their hands on them. But tell me ... what evidence can you supply regarding where they came from ? Can you show me they did NOT originally come from Iraq ?

I can't speak about Bush's record as President on US domestic issues with any great confidence. But, as for his initiative in fighting the War on Terror .. that, for me, makes him one of the all-time GREATS amongst all the Presidents the US has produced.

Reading only books by left wingers or left sympathizers always leads to a lot of lies told.

First they wanted Saddam gone. Witness their words. Witness the law signed by Bill Clinton. When Bush was discussing a possible attack, watch what the left did all the time. They urged war.

But once it happened, they claim they only used WMD for a reason.

So, why did Saddam resist all the time? And when he did stop resisting, had he played crying wolf one time too many?

Then we have General Sada (I think it is his correct name) lecturing in the USA that he is positive that Saddam had WMD and that upon fairly imminent attack, he took the WMD to store in Syria.

There is more proof he had it than that he did not.

Bush had no motive to lie.

So democrats invented a reason.

Supposedly a revenge on Saddam over the attempt to kill Bush 41.

Bush as a former military officer would be one of the last to risk men's lives in combat. Even in Afghanistan, he risked Afghani lives rather than risk American's lives. Sure, some American lives were risked but by and large, we operated in a fashion to make sure the Afghanis beat the Taliban and beat the Al Qaeda.

As to Iraq, Bush warned Saddam over and over. Well, Saddam refused to listen. So he ended up hanging. (on that note, had Saddam did his crimes in CA, he still would be living at San Quention or some Federal prison)

Oh and during Afghanistan's war for freedom, it ended up that OBL fled the country. Bush can't be blamed for not essentially attacking some other nation just to kill one man.

Besides, Obama has not shown us a bit of evidence he killed Bin Laden.

He claims he did. Where are his photos. Where is the body?

[Drummond]

Reading only books by left wingers or left sympathizers always leads to a lot of lies told.

First they wanted Saddam gone. Witness their words. Witness the law signed by Bill Clinton. When Bush was discussing a possible attack, watch what the left did all the time. They urged war.

But once it happened, they claim they only used WMD for a reason.

So, why did Saddam resist all the time? And when he did stop resisting, had he played crying wolf one time too many?

Then we have General Sada (I think it is his correct name) lecturing in the USA that he is positive that Saddam had WMD and that upon fairly imminent attack, he took the WMD to store in Syria.

There is more proof he had it than that he did not.

Bush had no motive to lie.

So democrats invented a reason.

Supposedly a revenge on Saddam over the attempt to kill Bush 41.

Bush as a former military officer would be one of the last to risk men's lives in combat. Even in Afghanistan, he risked Afghani lives rather than risk American's lives. Sure, some American lives were risked but by and large, we operated in a fashion to make sure the Afghanis beat the Taliban and beat the Al Qaeda.

As to Iraq, Bush warned Saddam over and over. Well, Saddam refused to listen. So he ended up hanging. (on that note, had Saddam did his crimes in CA, he still would be living at San Quention or some Federal prison)

Oh and during Afghanistan's war for freedom, it ended up that OBL fled the country. Bush can't be blamed for not essentially attacking some other nation just to kill one man.

Besides, Obama has not shown us a bit of evidence he killed Bin Laden.

He claims he did. Where are his photos. Where is the body?:clap::clap:

Agreed on all but the last point. I do believe bin Laden's dead. I'm not sure even Obama would have the nerve to try and hoodwink the world on that one.

That said, though ... I take your point about lack of evidence. You never do know. I admit the possibility I could be wrong.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=607837#post607837)
Reading only books by left wingers or left sympathizers always leads to a lot of lies told.

First they wanted Saddam gone. Witness their words. Witness the law signed by Bill Clinton. When Bush was discussing a possible attack, watch what the left did all the time. They urged war.

But once it happened, they claim they only used WMD for a reason.

So, why did Saddam resist all the time? And when he did stop resisting, had he played crying wolf one time too many?

Then we have General Sada (I think it is his correct name) lecturing in the USA that he is positive that Saddam had WMD and that upon fairly imminent attack, he took the WMD to store in Syria.

There is more proof he had it than that he did not.

Bush had no motive to lie.

So democrats invented a reason.

Supposedly a revenge on Saddam over the attempt to kill Bush 41.

Bush as a former military officer would be one of the last to risk men's lives in combat. Even in Afghanistan, he risked Afghani lives rather than risk American's lives. Sure, some American lives were risked but by and large, we operated in a fashion to make sure the Afghanis beat the Taliban and beat the Al Qaeda.

As to Iraq, Bush warned Saddam over and over. Well, Saddam refused to listen. So he ended up hanging. (on that note, had Saddam did his crimes in CA, he still would be living at San Quention or some Federal prison)

Oh and during Afghanistan's war for freedom, it ended up that OBL fled the country. Bush can't be blamed for not essentially attacking some other nation just to kill one man.

Besides, Obama has not shown us a bit of evidence he killed Bin Laden.

He claims he did. Where are his photos. Where is the body?







:clap::clap:

Agreed on all but the last point. I do believe bin Laden's dead. I'm not sure even Obama would have the nerve to try and hoodwink the world on that one.

That said, though ... I take your point about lack of evidence. You never do know. I admit the possibility I could be wrong.

I admit that I also believe OBL was killed by the Seals. They have given written accounts of it. But Obama tried to act as if photos of the body were not needed.

[revelarts]

Rev, you really need to let go of your hate for GWB. My God you remind me so much of Neville Chamberlain who bent over backwards to appease Hitler and ended up costing the lives of 50 million people

So when did Iraq roll into Czechoslovakia, Poland, Austria, etc etc ?
Or any set of neighboring countries red. please give me a strait answer. OH Kuwait!! Right well we already beat them there am i right? Were his forces in ANYWAY a threat to any neighbors OTHER than Kuwait? ANYTHING like the juggernaut Hitler had built . NO. They were beaten in weeks. OK so was his army any more powerful when W came to power? NO. we'd been starving them for years, had stripped them of conventional weapons missiles and wmds, had U.N. inspectors up the back sides, AND PLANES flying over their country constantly.
Is that the part that made Saddam and Iraq look like Hitler to you and others?
With all that IRAQ were planing to roll into any other countries...LIKE HITLER.. and much more attack the U.S...?
BOTH Powell and Rice (those left wing crazys) said publicly that Saddam was "contained". Were they Nevile Chamberlains too?

it's a RIDICULOUS comparison.
Iraq was on the verge of ATTACKING NO ONE RED.
the Iraqi threat was faker than man made global warming.
There was no need to attack them, NONE.

[revelarts]

Saddam only opposed terrorists when he saw it was in his interest to do so. See ...
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/index.cfm?secID=192&pageID=4&type=section
It's not as though evidence doesn't exist, revelarts ...

"only opposed terrorists when he saw it was in his interest to do so..."
As does the U.S. sir.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33130-US-support-quot-good-quot-terrorist&highlight=good+terrorist

Jundullah the MEK terrorist that the U.S. gov't supports against Iran.
Just as we supported the Taliban and alqeada, (but you guys don't believe that never mind)





You want to attack Israel on the basis of an UNTRUTH ?? Tut tut ... see ...
http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=64336Sorry sir they did they admitted they created Hamas. In that Crazy Left wing paper the Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html
that kinda back fired -talk about your blow back.

.."Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation," says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel's destruction.
Instead of trying to curb Gaza's Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat's Fatah. Israel cooperated with a crippled, half-blind cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, even as he was laying the foundations for what would become Hamas. Sheikh Yassin continues to inspire militants today; during the recent war in Gaza, Hamas fighters confronted Israeli troops with "Yassins," primitive rocket-propelled grenades..."


You want to attack an ally of yours ?
I suggest you find evidence of the Saudi realisation that they should regard Al Qaeda as an enemy. Their opposition to Al Qaeda has grown, and now is stronger than ever.
well look at that you mean muslims can change?!? change from supporting to thinking they are the enemy? imagine that. That means YOU DON"T have to go to war with everyone huh. what concept Drummond THANK YOU!





Yes, true, WMD's were the focus. But, why did it matter whether he had them ? Why SUCH WIDESPREAD CONCERN ?
Part of the reason was that his was such a rogue regime that he couldn't be trusted to keep them. See THIS ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations
Could this be any clearer ?There were no clear ties between Saddam and AlQueada Terrorist. At least Much less than the U.S. has Clear ties and trade with the Taliban now, or Alquead in the Libyian gov't. Do those ties mean full support for all they do Drummond.
And You don't attack people for imagined evil intent Drummond. Or light association.
that's ANOTHER reason why Bush was a terrible president . For making that DARK AGGRESSIVE war crime of an idea seem noble.
-Attack other countries before they maybe think about attacking you.-

:sleep:

[ConHog]

"only opposed terrorists when he saw it was in his interest to do so..."
As does the U.S. sir.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33130-US-support-quot-good-quot-terrorist&highlight=good+terrorist

Jundullah the MEK terrorist that the U.S. gov't supports against Iran.
Just as we supported the Taliban and alqeada, (but you guys don't believe that never mind)



Sorry sir they did they admitted they created Hamas. In that Crazy Left wing paper the Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html
that kinda back fired -talk about your blow back.

.."Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation," says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel's destruction.
Instead of trying to curb Gaza's Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat's Fatah. Israel cooperated with a crippled, half-blind cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, even as he was laying the foundations for what would become Hamas. Sheikh Yassin continues to inspire militants today; during the recent war in Gaza, Hamas fighters confronted Israeli troops with "Yassins," primitive rocket-propelled grenades..."
well look at that you mean muslims can change?!? change from supporting to thinking they are the enemy? imagine that. That means YOU DON"T have to go to war with everyone huh. what concept Drummond THANK YOU!



There were no clear ties between Saddam and AlQueada Terrorist. At least Much less than the U.S. has Clear ties and trade with the Taliban now, or Alquead in the Libyian gov't. Do those ties mean full support for all they do Drummond.
And You don't attack people for imagined evil intent Drummond. Or light association.
that's ANOTHER reason why Bush was a terrible president . For making that DARK AGGRESSIVE war crime of an idea seem noble.
-Attack other countries before they maybe think about attacking you.-

:sleep:



LOL Rev still kicking dumb ass and taking names I see.

But do you acknowledge that unknowingly repeating false information would not be the same as lying?

[revelarts]

But do you acknowledge that unknowingly repeating false information would not be the same as lying?

Sure I think that's what happen to Powell.
I used to think Bush was ignorant too but the more i've read about the memos and other meetings the less likely i think Bush Didn't know he was telling lies.
I'm convinced Cheney and Rummy were lying and knew it from the start.

[ConHog]

Sure I think that's what happen to Powell.
I used to think Bush was ignorant too but the more i've read about the memos and other meetings the less likely i think Bush Didn't know he was telling lies.
I'm convinced Cheney and Rummy were lying and knew it from the start.

I agree with you about Cheney and Rummy. Just something about those two. Not sure about Bush though. To be honest I think they were cutting him out of a lot of the intel and such. Maybe that was for the best lol

[revelarts]

I agree with you about Cheney and Rummy. Just something about those two. Not sure about Bush though. To be honest I think they were cutting him out of a lot of the intel and such. Maybe that was for the best lol

Cheney and Rummy had been together since Reagan or Bush senior at least.
I think your right.

[ConHog]

Cheney and Rummy had been together since Reagan or Bush senior at least.
I think your right.

and so we could label him as dumb, gullible, and possibly derelict in his duties , but he didn't lie about his reasons for going into Iraq.

[revelarts]

and so we could label him as dumb, gullible, and possibly derelict in his duties , but he didn't lie about his reasons for going into Iraq.
That's not what i said.
But I think he got lead more than did the leading in Iraq's case, but was finally in on it all early enough to know better.

But later i think Cheney wanted to go into Iran but, Bush didn't fall for that one.

[ConHog]

That's not what i said.
But I think he got lead more than did the leading in Iraq's case, but was finally in on it all early enough to know better.

But later i think Cheney wanted to go into Iran but, Bush didn't fall for that one.

I don't doubt Cheney wanted to go into Iran, and Syria and anywhere else he could have got us into. That man was a true asshole.

[aboutime]

I don't doubt Cheney wanted to go into Iran, and Syria and anywhere else he could have got us into. That man was a true asshole.


So you are still calling someone you Emulate so well...a true asshole? Looks like nothing has changed since you were here last.

[Robert A Whit]

(Wikipedia)
After he retired Sada was living a quiet life in Iraq, but when after 2003 Invasion of Iraq (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/2003_Invasion_of_Iraq) by the United States armed forces (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces), Sada sided with the US government in their invasion of Iraq and aided in the fight against Saddam Hussein. During the invasion of Iraq, Sada served as spokesman for the interim leader Iyad Allawi (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Iyad_Allawi), and he was appointed as National Security Advisor.
In August 2004 Sada announced that he would be signing a bill to introduce the death penalty (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Death_penalty) in Iraq. The bill introduces the death penalty for anyone who is "threatening national security". (on al-Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/69F4969F-E69D-4472-B854-357E97B6FAF6.htm))
On January 24, 2006, he announced the publication of a book he had written entitled Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied And Survived Saddam Hussein (http://www.debatepolicy.com/w/index.php?title=Saddam%27s_Secrets&action=edit&redlink=1), with the tagline "An insider exposes plans to destroy Israel, hide WMD's (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction) and control the Arab world."[1] (http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6291124.html#review3) Sada, the former Air Vice-Marshal (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Air_Vice-Marshal) under Hussein, appeared the following day on Fox News (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Fox_News)' Hannity & Colmes (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Hannity_%26_Colmes), where he discussed his book and reported that other pilots told him that Hussein had ordered them to fly portions of the WMD stockpiles to Damascus in Syria (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Syria) just prior to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/2003_Invasion_of_Iraq). After the release of his book, Sada was interviewed by Fox News (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Fox_News), and he stated:

"Well, I want to make it clear, very clear to everybody in the world that we had the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, and the regime used them against our Iraqi people...I know it because I have got the captains of the Iraqi airway that were my friends, and they told me these weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria. Iraq had some projects for nuclear weapons but it was destroyed in 1981 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Operation_Opera)".
When asked during his interview with Fox News if there was any chance that there were nuclear weapons or on their way to nuclear weapons when USA invaded, he said "Not in Iraq". Sada made a guest appearance on The Daily Show (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/The_Daily_Show) on March 21, 2006 to promote Saddam's Secrets. His (Sada's) claims, though, tend to contradict the findings of the Duelfer Report (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Duelfer_Report), which "judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place," though analysts were unable to rule out the possibility.

[Drummond]

"only opposed terrorists when he saw it was in his interest to do so..."
As does the U.S. sir.

... but with a BIG difference, revelarts. The US is not a 'rogue regime' .. it does not launch WMD's against enemies, as attempts at genocide, for the fun of it .. as Saddam did against the Kurds, for example.


Just as we supported the Taliban and alqeada, (but you guys don't believe that never mind)

I'm not inclined to believe falsehoods just because the Left keeps on trying to disseminate them - sorry to disappoint you. Just taking the Al Qaeda issue, they didn't even EXIST until 1988. The US did help the Mujahiddeen, which was a different organisation, with some different aims, out of which Al Qaeda eventually grew.

It's a point of 'confusion' which the Left tries to exploit to spread anti-American propaganda .. pathetically, in my view.


Sorry sir they did they admitted they created Hamas. In that Crazy Left wing paper the Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html
that kinda back fired -talk about your blow back.

.."Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation," says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel's destruction.
Instead of trying to curb Gaza's Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat's Fatah. Israel cooperated with a crippled, half-blind cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, even as he was laying the foundations for what would become Hamas. Sheikh Yassin continues to inspire militants today; during the recent war in Gaza, Hamas fighters confronted Israeli troops with "Yassins," primitive rocket-propelled grenades..."

This is getting tiresome.

That Hamas came from the Muslim Brotherhood is a well known, established FACT. Observe, for example ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hamas


Hamas was established in 1987, and has its origins in Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood movement, which had been active in the Gaza Strip since the 1950s and gained influence through a network of mosques and various charitable and social organizations. In the 1980s the Brotherhood emerged as a powerful political factor, challenging the influence of the PLO, and in 1987 adopted a more nationalist and activist line under the name of Hamas

The following year, Hamas produced its 'Charter', a 'foundling' document which represents its core aims and so-called 'values'. See ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant


The Hamas Charter (or Covenant), issued in 1988, outlined the position of the Palestinian Islamic organization Hamas on many key issues at the time. The Charter identified Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and declares its members to be Muslims who "fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors." The charter states that "our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories, and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel

Claims that Israel created THAT are, demonstrably ... NUTS. Please don't waste our time with falsehoods that are actually insane.

... Tell you what, revelarts. Prove to me that Israel wants to destroy itself (!!!), and I'll take notice of this stuff. If you can't, really, you should reconsider such insanity.


well look at that you mean muslims can change?!? change from supporting to thinking they are the enemy? imagine that. That means YOU DON"T have to go to war with everyone huh. what concept Drummond THANK YOU!

Even Muslims can face reality at times, revelarts. The reality Saudi Arabia faced was that Al Qaeda will turn against any power being, in its judgment, too friendly with America and the West. They came to that judgment with Egypt, and also did where Saudi Arabia was concerned. And, yes, Saudi Arabia IS willing to defend itself against Al Qaeda's hostility.


There were no clear ties between Saddam and AlQueada Terrorist. At least Much less than the U.S. has Clear ties and trade with the Taliban now, or Alquead in the Libyian gov't. Do those ties mean full support for all they do Drummond.

Saddam gave sanctuary to Zarqawi, as I said before. WHY, if Saddam wasn't predisposed to favour Al Qaeda ?

Tell me. What Taliban terrorists have been given sanctuary by America (... and I don't think Gitmo qualifies !!) ??


And You don't attack people for imagined evil intent Drummond. Or light association.

Maybe Lefties don't ... which gives potential enemies quite an edge against you, doesn't it ? Besides, who's to say what is 'imagined', and what is 'intelligently inferred' ?

The international intelligence community, revelarts, would have to close down much of its operational effectiveness if the policy of only acting once proof of intention to attack became universally standard. For example, if an intelligence agency was convinced that a terrorist cell had the will and the means to deploy a WMD in a major city, to what extent should they do NOTHING before acting ? Only when the terrorists are caught in the act of deployment ? Or, worse, following MASS DEATH from a successful attack ??


that's ANOTHER reason why Bush was a terrible president . For making that DARK AGGRESSIVE war crime of an idea seem noble.
-Attack other countries before they maybe think about attacking you.-

Same comment. Some of us prefer to deal with threats SOONER rather than LATER. The War on Terror was not only justified, revelarts, but for the sake of world security, was and is nothing less than a necessity.

Doubtless you'll want to adopt an 'ostrich' posture on this one: but I suggest to you that we're ALWAYS in a race against time to keep WMD's out of the hands of terrorists. Remember, failure need only occur ONCE for disaster to occur, and thousands, maybe MILLIONS, of deaths to result. But the unhappy fate of the world's security services ... yours, mine, many others ... is that of commitment to the task of keeping terrorists off-balance enough so that they can never realise such a murderous dream. This has to be A CONSTANT EFFORT that ALWAYS SUCCEEDS.

Of course, actually wiping out the terrorist opposition would be the most effective solution of the lot, hence why an actual, bona fide war against terrorism is an eminently workable approach. No doubt, though, the Left balk at that ... their 'human rights' must be protected, after all, and to hell with ANY consideration of their VICTIMS ........

The Left, no doubt, want to be irresponsible enough to trust to the mythical 'humanity' of terrorists, that they'd never go that far. But, then ... maybe, on September 10th, 2001, many Lefties would never have conceived of the events of the very next day ... h'mmm ???? :cuckoo:

[ConHog]

... but with a BIG difference, revelarts. The US is not a 'rogue regime' .. it does not launch WMD's against enemies, as attempts at genocide, for the fun of it .. as Saddam did against the Kurds, for example.



I'm not inclined to believe falsehoods just because the Left keeps on trying to disseminate them - sorry to disappoint you. Just taking the Al Qaeda issue, they didn't even EXIST until 1988. The US did help the Mujahiddeen, which was a different organisation, with some different aims, out of which Al Qaeda eventually grew.

It's a point of 'confusion' which the Left tries to exploit to spread anti-American propaganda .. pathetically, in my view.



This is getting tiresome.

That Hamas came from the Muslim Brotherhood is a well known, established FACT. Observe, for example ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hamas



The following year, Hamas produced its 'Charter', a 'foundling' document which represents its core aims and so-called 'values'. See ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant



Claims that Israel created THAT are, demonstrably ... NUTS. Please don't waste our time with falsehoods that are actually insane.

... Tell you what, revelarts. Prove to me that Israel wants to destroy itself (!!!), and I'll take notice of this stuff. If you can't, really, you should reconsider such insanity.



Even Muslims can face reality at times, revelarts. The reality Saudi Arabia faced was that Al Qaeda will turn against any power being, in its judgment, too friendly with America and the West. They came to that judgment with Egypt, and also did where Saudi Arabia was concerned. And, yes, Saudi Arabia IS willing to defend itself against Al Qaeda's hostility.



Saddam gave sanctuary to Zarqawi, as I said before. WHY, if Saddam wasn't predisposed to favour Al Qaeda ?

Tell me. What Taliban terrorists have been given sanctuary by America (... and I don't think Gitmo qualifies !!) ??



Maybe Lefties don't ... which gives potential enemies quite an edge against you, doesn't it ? Besides, who's to say what is 'imagined', and what is 'intelligently inferred' ?

The international intelligence community, revelarts, would have to close down much of its operational effectiveness if the policy of only acting once proof of intention to attack became universally standard. For example, if an intelligence agency was convinced that a terrorist cell had the will and the means to deploy a WMD in a major city, to what extent should they do NOTHING before acting ? Only when the terrorists are caught in the act of deployment ? Or, worse, following MASS DEATH from a successful attack ??



Same comment. Some of us prefer to deal with threats SOONER rather than LATER. The War on Terror was not only justified, revelarts, but for the sake of world security, was and is nothing less than a necessity.

Doubtless you'll want to adopt an 'ostrich' posture on this one: but I suggest to you that we're ALWAYS in a race against time to keep WMD's out of the hands of terrorists. Remember, failure need only occur ONCE for disaster to occur, and thousands, maybe MILLIONS, of deaths to result. But the unhappy fate of the world's security services ... yours, mine, many others ... is that of commitment to the task of keeping terrorists off-balance enough so that they can never realise such a murderous dream. This has to be A CONSTANT EFFORT.

Of course, actually wiping out the terrorist opposition would be the most effective solution of the lot, hence why an actual, bona fide war against terrorism is an eminently workable approach. No doubt, though, the Left balk at that ... their 'human rights' must be protected, after all, and to hell with ANY consideration of their VICTIMS ........

The Left, no doubt, want to be irresponsible enough to trust to the mythical 'humanity' of terrorists, that they'd never go that far. But, then ... maybe, on September 10th, 2001, many Lefties would never have conceived of the events of the very next day ... h'mmm ???? :cuckoo:

Actually, I'm fairly certain we did. Twice.

[Drummond]

Actually, I'm fairly certain we did. Twice.

You refer to ... as I stipulated in my post, after all (.. I suggest you re-read it and check my wording ..) ... 'attempts at genocide', ConHog ?

You're actually accusing your own country (I take it you are American ?) of attempts at GENOCIDE ???

I look forward to revisiting this thread and seeing you struggle with THAT one ....

ConHog, you are having one hell of a first day back to this forum, eh .. ? What will you try and claim on day #2 ??

[ConHog]

You refer to ... as I stipulated in my post, after all (.. I suggest you re-read it and check my wording ..) ... 'attempts at genocide', ConHog ?

You're actually accusing your own country (I take it you are American ?) of attempts at GENOCIDE ???

I look forward to revisiting this thread and seeing you struggle with THAT one ....

is that the part I bolded? No it isn't.

BUT I think it could be fairly well argued that the US has participated in genocide as well. Certainly the Native Americans would agree.

[Drummond]

is that the part I bolded? No it isn't.

BUT I think it could be fairly well argued that the US has participated in genocide as well. Certainly the Native Americans would agree.

Oh, I see. Only the parts of MY post YOU choose to reproduce in bold font are worth consideration ?

Sorry, Conhog, but I believe I have a right to state, and to mean, what I CHOOSE to state, and to mean. Oh, I daresay you find it convenient to alter contexts according to your own wishes and needs, but some of us don't choose to resort to such a tactic at the drop of a hat.

As for ...


... that the US has participated in genocide as well. Certainly the Native Americans would agree.

... have you stopped to consider how illogical this is ? Given that you're trying to assert that the US perpetrated genocide against the 'Native Americans' ... er'm, how come, if such genocide happened, that there are ANY Native Americans even ALIVE to offer any opinion ?????

Do you believe in ghosts, ConHog ?

Perhaps the SURVIVING Native Americans (they must BE that, to manage to offer any opinion AS what they definitively ARE) have genetically 'shifted race' ? Could that be it ? Do explain -

ConHog ... 'seriously', welcome back. With this calibre of posting, I think you'll succeed in adding a much-needed humorous addition to the forum .... :laugh::laugh:

[ConHog]

Oh, I see. Only the parts of MY post YOU choose to reproduce in bold font are worth consideration ?

Sorry, Conhog, but I believe I have a right to state, and to mean, what I CHOOSE to state, and to mean. Oh, I daresay you find it convenient to alter contexts according to your own wishes and needs, but some of us don't choose to resort to such a tactic at the drop of a hat.

As for ...



... have you stopped to consider how illogical this is ? Given that you're trying to assert that the US perpetrated genocide against the 'Native Americans' ... er'm, how come, if such genocide happened, that there are ANY Native Americans even ALIVE to disagree ?????

Do you believe in ghosts, ConHog ?

Perhaps the SURVIVING Native Americans (they must BE that, to manage to offer any opinion AS what they definitively ARE) have genetically 'shifted race' ? Could that be it ? Do explain -

ConHog ... 'seriously', welcome back. With this calibre of posting, I think you'll succeed in adding a much-needed humorous addition to the forum .... :laugh::laugh:



A) I didn't alter your post in any way, shape, or form - if you feel I did , that is against the rules, report me

B) Are you now suggesting that what the Nazis perpetrated upon the Jews was not genocide since not every single Jew was exterminated?

[Drummond]

A) I didn't alter your post in any way, shape, or form - if you feel I did , that is against the rules, report me

You really need to pay attention. I did not say you ALTERED my post. However, you chose a context for it that my wording did not address, and you did so by cherry-picking only that wording which best suited your purpose.


B) Are you now suggesting that what the Nazis perpetrated upon the Jews was not genocide since not every single Jew was exterminated?

Yes, on balance, that's a fair statement. The Nazis certainly ATTEMPTED genocide against the Jews. Their Holocaust efforts were aimed at that objective, and they worked hard to achieve it. However .. Hitler's defeat stopped that attempt at genocide from reaching completion. Something which, incidentally, America played its major, indeed decisive, part in bringing about ... the defeat of the Third Reich is an historical achievement your country should be very proud of.

Anyway, Conhog, I shall - I think - return to this thread later today. I hope you'll have some more amusing offerings waiting for me .. and thanks for the laugh you've given me up to now ! :laugh:

[Drummond]

Conman is a half way decent stand up comic. But you need to have a tube of Preparation H handy after reading several of his babbling posts. Have a great day Drummond

Thanks for that. Likewise, you too have a great day. Back later !

[ConHog]

You really need to pay attention. I did not say you ALTERED my post. However, you chose a context for it that my wording did not address, and you did so by cherry-picking only that wording which best suited your purpose.


I beg to differ. When you claim I altered the context of your post, you in fact claimed I altered your post. Now you claim you didn't say that. When it's right there in your post for anyone to read.





Yes, on balance, that's a fair statement. The Nazis certainly ATTEMPTED genocide against the Jews. Their Holocaust efforts were aimed at that objective, and they worked hard to achieve it. However .. Hitler's defeat stopped that attempt at genocide from reaching completion. Something which, incidentally, America played its major, indeed decisive, part in bringing about ... the defeat of the Third Reich is an historical achievement your country should be very proud of.

Anyway, Conhog, I shall - I think - return to this thread later today. I hope you'll have some more amusing offerings waiting for me .. and thanks for the laugh you've given me up to now ! :laugh:

Oh I see, so it's only genocide if it's a complete "success" , you might be the only person in the world who believes that. No , I take that back, because I seriously believe even you believe that.

[revelarts]

And Saddam didn't kill all the Kurds either. So i don't know what Drummond is talking about. Drummond your point is baseless going by your own standard. There are so many Kurds in Iraq there's been concern of them forming a separate state.

Look Drummond I'm finding out, a little late maybe, that you are not seriously interested in ANY information that doesn't agree with your positions. I posted a confession from an Israeli official as to their complicity in Hamas's inception/growth, written in one of our most conservative and respected mainstream newspapers and you deny the facts in black and white completely and consider the notion crazy.

Seems like i'm talking to a wall of partisan beliefs instead of a human being being that's honestly thinking about ALL the facts available to him and trying to access their meaning. But you'd rather force them them fit or outright reject them as crazy or liberal because it conflicts with your current vision of the world. It's just frustrating pointing out a rock on the ground to someone who denies it's there. and calls you crazy for pointing it out. Drummond I can appreciate your patriotism but basically, for what ever reason you don't seem to be an honest player. I'll take that into account going forward.

[taft2012]

BUT I think it could be fairly well argued that the US has participated in genocide as well. Certainly the Native Americans would agree.

... and I *KNOW* it could be fairly well argued that the Native Americans participated in genocide as well, against both white and (gasp! OMG!) Mexican settlers.

Certainly the great Comanche raids to the ocean were genocide missions to eradicate non-Native Americans from their lands. In fact, some tribes were known to carry out genocide against other Native Americans tribes (gasp! swoon!)

Or we can just call it a very ugly war.

It's really irksome, whether torture or other ugly practices, when outrage is selectively applied only the American side. Resulting discussions are then based on false premises.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

... and I *KNOW* it could be fairly well argued that the Native Americans participated in genocide as well, against both white and (gasp! OMG!) Mexican settlers.

Certainly the great Comanche raids to the ocean were genocide missions to eradicate non-Native Americans from their lands. In fact, some tribes were known to carry out genocide against other Native Americans tribes (gasp! swoon!)

Or we can just call it a very ugly war.

It's really irksome, whether torture or other ugly practices, when outrage is selectively applied only the American side. Resulting discussions are then based on false premises.

War is about destroying the enemy. This nation was t war with the Native Americans and they with it often. Both sides are guilty of atrocities. Hell, the Native Americans entire way of fighting involved what we would call atrocities for they attacked civilian same as they did our military! Making absolutely no distinction between the two. When the "favor" was returned is suddenly -ALL- that matters now. I don't accept that and my grandfather was full blood Indian. I had much firsthand knowledge passed down to me from both sides of my family. If genocide had been our government's official policy it would have been accomplished.. Certain individuals with authority engaged in it but it was never our government's official policy.
Those with less knowledge and propaganda inspired will claim that it was .
Ignorance speaks often and loudly too. Drummond's claim is correct.. Atrocies by both sides do not genocide make, as to which side went to war with the intent to commit genocide it was most often the Native Americans. As they often rampaged the countryside murdering every white they could lay hands on!! Women and children included. The fact that whites retaliated to that in kind was not a policy of genocide. -Tyr

[Drummond]

And Saddam didn't kill all the Kurds either. So i don't know what Drummond is talking about.

Well, you could do what ConHog has failed to do, and view my comments in their correct, and intended, context ! I really think you'll find it helpful.

Did I state, anywhere, that Saddam killed all the Kurds ?? He DID use a WMD against them ... you know, one of those things you're so very determined to believe he had NONE of ...


Drummond your point is baseless going by your own standard. There are so many Kurds in Iraq there's been concern of them forming a separate state.

... So ?


Look Drummond I'm finding out, a little late maybe, that you are not seriously interested in ANY information that doesn't agree with your positions.

What I'm not interested in (apart from the good laugh it gives me) is having comments I make taken out of context. Why would I be ? Likewise, I'm not interested in swallowing Left-wing propaganda. Again, since I'm not a Leftie desperate to see the world in unrealistic terms, WHY would I consider myself obligated to swallow ANY of it ??

Take your utter absurdity about, supposedly, 'Israel creating Hamas'. Now, WHY would Israel create any movement dedicated, as a foundling PRINCIPLE yet, to Israel's destruction !!! I've posted you evidence of their origins from the Muslim Brotherhood. You have a choice - believe sensible truth, or insane Leftieism.


I posted a confession from an Israeli official as to their complicity in Hamas's inception/growth, written in one of our most conservative and respected mainstream newspapers and you deny the facts in black and white completely and consider the notion crazy.

*Sigh* ...

Here we go AGAIN ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hamas


Hamas was established in 1987, and has its origins in Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood movement, which had been active in the Gaza Strip since the 1950s and gained influence through a network of mosques and various charitable and social organizations. In the 1980s the Brotherhood emerged as a powerful political factor, challenging the influence of the PLO, and in 1987 adopted a more nationalist and activist line under the name of Hamas

Do you, may I quote, 'deny the facts in black and white completely' ... yes, or no ?


Seems like i'm talking to a wall of partisan beliefs instead of a human being being that's honestly thinking about ALL the facts available to him and trying to access their meaning.

... you were saying .. ??

I, revelarts, am a human being who doesn't buy into the totally insane notion that Israel created a movement which has, as a central reason for being, the destruction of Israel !!! Which do you choose to do, revelarts, believe something insane because it's convenient from a PARTISAN perspective, or instead accept clear - and SANE - EVIDENCE WHICH DEFIES THE INSANITY ???


But you'd rather force them them fit or outright reject them as crazy or liberal because it conflicts with your current vision of the world. It's just frustrating pointing out a rock on the ground to someone who denies it's there. and calls you crazy for pointing it out. Drummond I can appreciate your patriotism but basically, for what ever reason you don't seem to be an honest player. I'll take that into account going forward.

I've made my case, revelarts, and unlike your own, mine has a grounding in clear rationality. Believe evidence that makes sense, or, believe (.. because you WANT to ..) supposed evidence which makes no sense whatever.

[Drummond]

Well, here I am, ConHog, finding something mildly amusing from you. It's not all THAT funny. But it'll do to be going on with ...:laugh:


I beg to differ. When you claim I altered the context of your post, you in fact claimed I altered your post. Now you claim you didn't say that. When it's right there in your post for anyone to read.

Definitely funny. Sort of. As in, it appeals to my sense of the absurd.

Conhog ... tell me, do you have Admin status ? Can you go into another participant's post and edit it ?

And did you do any such thing with mine ?? I really think NOT ..

You posted your OWN post, subsequent to mine, and decided, in your OWN text, to muck about with context. YOUR post, Conhog, is not MY post.

If someone draws a drawing, then someone else comes along and draws another drawing only superficially similar, is the ORIGINAL drawing altered, or not ?


Oh I see, so it's only genocide if it's a complete "success" , you might be the only person in the world who believes that.

I sincerely hope not !!! I credit others on this planet with greater rationality than it seems you yourself do.

Here's a dictionary definition of 'genocide' ...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide?s=t



gen·o·cide

noun the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
What you don't see in that text is any reference to anything being partially completed, or just attempted, as qualification for correct attribution. It doesn't say 'attempted' extermination, or 'semi-completed' extermination, now, does it ?

If a man is charged with murder, arrested, and undergoes trial for the crime of murder, tell me ... how many such cases do you know of, where the VICTIM turns up, and alleges he was murdered ? Can you perhaps cite me a successful 'guilty' verdict from such a case ??

Genocide is genocide, ConHog, when genocide is committed. And not because it HASN'T been .....

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well, you could do what ConHog has failed to do, and view my comments in their correct, and intended, context ! I really think you'll find it helpful.

Did I state, anywhere, that Saddam killed all the Kurds ?? He DID use a WMD against them ... you know, one of those things you're so very determined to believe he had NONE of ...



... So ?



What I'm not interested in (apart from the good laugh it gives me) is having comments I make taken out of context. Why would I be ? Likewise, I'm not interested in swallowing Left-wing propaganda. Again, since I'm not a Leftie desperate to see the world in unrealistic terms, WHY would I consider myself obligated to swallow ANY of it ??

Take your utter absurdity about, supposedly, 'Israel creating Hamas'. Now, WHY would Israel create any movement dedicated, as a foundling PRINCIPLE yet, to Israel's destruction !!! I've posted you evidence of their origins from the Muslim Brotherhood. You have a choice - believe sensible truth, or insane Leftieism.



*Sigh* ...

Here we go AGAIN ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hamas



Do you, may I quote, 'deny the facts in black and white completely' ... yes, or no ?



... you were saying .. ??

I, revelarts, am a human being who doesn't buy into the totally insane notion that Israel created a movement which has, as a central reason for being, the destruction of Israel !!! Which do you choose to do, revelarts, believe something insane because it's convenient from a PARTISAN perspective, or instead accept clear - and SANE - EVIDENCE WHICH DEFIES THE INSANITY ???



I've made my case, revelarts, and unlike your own, mine has a grounding in clear rationality. Believe evidence that makes sense, or, believe (.. because you WANT to ..) supposed evidence which makes no sense whatever.

Why on earth would the State of Israel create an organization dedicated to the utter destruction of the State of Israel!! I find it incredible that anybody would believe that...Even more so a tiny state that has struggled so hard to not be exterminated!! SACRIFICING SUCH BLOOD AND TREASURE TO REMAIN INTACT, INDEPENDENT AND ALIVE!
How many millions and billions have these terrorist organizations had at their disposal?? It stands to reason that they had the means and desire to put out such misinformation . And the ability to make it appear somewhat convincing, that is until one looks at the insanity that it would have to be founded on! National suicide...
I do not buy it... -Tyr

[Drummond]

Why on earth would the State of Israel create an organization dedicated to the utter destruction of the State of Israel!! I find it incredible that anybody would believe that...Even more so a tiny state that has struggled so hard to not be exterminated!! SACRIFICING SUCH BLOOD AND TREASURE TO REMAIN INTACT, INDEPENDENT AND ALIVE!
How many millions and billions have these terrorist organizations had at their disposal?? It stands to reason that they had the means and desire to put out such misinformation . And the ability to make it appear somewhat convincing, that is until one looks at the insanity that it would have to be founded on! National suicide...
I do not buy it... -Tyr

I tell you, Tyr, it's sometimes staggering to realise what Lefties are prepare to swallow, just out of preference. That such preference makes no sense whatever seemingly makes no impact on them at all.

I begin to see how Obama got elected for a second term ....

[revelarts]

This started with

Drummond:"Saddam ... only opposed terrorists when he saw it was in his interest to do so..."
Revelarts: As does the U.S. sir.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...good+terrorist (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33130-US-support-quot-good-quot-terrorist&highlight=good+terrorist)
Jundullah the MEK terrorist that the U.S. gov't supports against Iran....

Drummond
...but with a BIG difference, revelarts. The US is not a 'rogue regime' .. it does not launch WMD's against enemies, as attempts at genocide, for the fun of it .. as Saddam did against the Kurds, for example.

ConHog
Actually, I'm fairly certain we did. Twice.

Drummond
You refer to ... as I stipulated in my post, after all (.. I suggest you re-read it and check my wording ..) ... 'attempts at genocide', ConHog ?
You're actually accusing your own country (I take it you are American ?) of attempts at GENOCIDE ??? (you specific Genocide as the point your argument turns on)
I look forward to revisiting this thread and seeing you struggle with THAT one ....

ConHog
BUT I think it could be fairly well argued that the US has participated in genocide as well. Certainly the Native Americans would agree.

Drummond
... have you stopped to consider how illogical this is ? Given that you're trying to assert that the US perpetrated genocide against the 'Native Americans' ... er'm, how come, if such genocide happened, that there are ANY Native Americans even ALIVE to offer any opinion ?????
Do you believe in ghosts, ConHog ? (again you point to genocide as THE point YOUR trying to make) Perhaps the SURVIVING Native Americans (they must BE that, to manage to offer any opinion AS what they definitively ARE) have genetically 'shifted race' ? Could that be it ? Do explain - (and here you say if some indians survived it's NOT genocide .. to you)

ConHog
B) Are you now suggesting that what the Nazis perpetrated upon the Jews was not genocide since not every single Jew was exterminated?

Drummond
Yes, on balance, that's a fair statement. The Nazis certainly ATTEMPTED genocide against the Jews. Their Holocaust efforts were aimed at that objective, and they worked hard to achieve it. However .. Hitler's defeat stopped that attempt at genocide from reaching completion. Something which, incidentally, America played its major, indeed decisive, part in bringing about ... the defeat of the Third Reich is an historical achievement your country should be very proud of.

Revelarts
And Saddam didn't kill all the Kurds either. So i don't know what Drummond is talking about. Drummond your point is baseless going by your own standard. There are so many Kurds in Iraq there's been concern of them forming a separate state.

Drummond
Well, you could do what ConHog has failed to do, and view my comments in their correct, and intended, context ! I really think you'll find it helpful.
Did I state, anywhere, that Saddam killed all the Kurds ?? He DID use a WMD against them...

So Now your talking about WMDs INSTEAD of Genocide or Attempted Genocide. riiiight
whatever Drummond

And it seems what your saying is it's OK for the U.S. to use terrorism and consort with and fund terrorist as long as you can claim that it's not wmdgenocide but no other countries can.:cuckoo:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I tell you, Tyr, it's sometimes staggering to realise what Lefties are prepare to swallow, just out of preference. That such preference makes no sense whatever seemingly makes no impact on them at all.

I begin to see how Obama got elected for a second term ....

Obama appealed to the emotion. the lack of knowledge(abject ignorance) and the laziness and greed of his followers!
And we saw how successful that was because the media and outside forces trumpeted it as nirvana. The "roman crowds" lapped it up like starved dogs at a sudden feast of heaping fesh meat and bones.
liberalism/socialism /dem party = dumb them down then feed them liberal shit and call it manna from paradise!
My shock was that a person as intelligent as the Rev. didnt dismiss it out of hand after a quick consideration of what it would signify, must signify--== suicide.. -Tyr

[revelarts]

Why on earth would the State of Israel create an organization dedicated to the utter destruction of the State of Israel!! I find it incredible that anybody would believe that...Even more so a tiny state that has struggled so hard to not be exterminated!! SACRIFICING SUCH BLOOD AND TREASURE TO REMAIN INTACT, INDEPENDENT AND ALIVE!
How many millions and billions have these terrorist organizations had at their disposal?? It stands to reason that they had the means and desire to put out such misinformation . And the ability to make it appear somewhat convincing, that is until one looks at the insanity that it would have to be founded on! National suicide...
I do not buy it... -Tyr


I tell you, Tyr, it's sometimes staggering to realise what Lefties are prepare to swallow, just out of preference. That such preference makes no sense whatever seemingly makes no impact on them at all.

I begin to see how Obama got elected for a second term ....

It's sometimes staggering to realize that people don't take the time to read the reports they so adimently oppose. And Assume all knowledge of the facts by NOT even Looking for or at anything else. Since they OBVIOUSLY haven't read it, the facts can makes no impact on them at all. And they remain bombastically ignorant of any view of the world that doesn't fit their theme park cowboys and Indians reality.

I would quote it for them, but whats the point they've already made up there minds that it cannot be true and characterized it in a way that's not as the original presenter stated it. But in a cartoonish light that allows them to feel comfortable in continued ignorance and ridicule the idea with petty partisan jibs and and emotional fearful jingoistic high 5s.

carry on

[Drummond]

This started with

Drummond:"Saddam ... only opposed terrorists when he saw it was in his interest to do so..."
Revelarts: As does the U.S. sir.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...good+terrorist (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33130-US-support-quot-good-quot-terrorist&highlight=good+terrorist)
Jundullah the MEK terrorist that the U.S. gov't supports against Iran....


So Now your talking about WMDs INSTEAD of Genocide or Attempted Genocide. riiiight
whatever Drummond

And it seems what your saying is it's OK for the U.S. to use terrorism and consort with and fund terrorist as long as you can claim that it's not wmdgenocide but no other countries can.:cuckoo:

Your irrationality persists. It's a shame ...

Let me thank you for illustrating that I persistently discussed ATTEMPTED genocide, or ATTEMPTS AT genocide.

The use of a WMD, or even more than one, does not guarantee that genocide will occur. It may be the intention of the aggressor who deploys it that genocide is achieved .. BUT, the intention does not of itself guarantee successful achievement of that goal.

Genocide HAPPENS when genocide HAPPENS, revelarts ... not when it DOESN'T.


it's OK for the U.S. to use terrorism and consort with and fund terrorist as long as you can claim that it's not wmdgenocide

[Is 'wmdgenocide' even a word ? Anyway, I digress ...]

I have to guess at what you're trying to get at, here .. it isn't particularly clear. Is this a reference to the US's support of the Mujahiddeen ?

The Mujahiddeen's goal was simple. They wanted the Soviet invaders kicked out of Afghanistan. They wanted Afghanistan to become autonomous once more, and not to remain a puppet State of the Soviet Empire.

That was ultimately achieved.

But, SINCE then, Al Qaeda was formed. Their existence had nothing to do with freedom FIGHTING, but everything to do with freedom CRUSHING, courtesy of acts of totally criminal brutality, done against innocent victims.

When I talk of those who were willing to support Al Qaeda, I'm talking about those who are terrorist enablers. Saddam was, most definitely, a terrorist enabler.

Now, how does tackling a terrorist enabler FAIL to qualify as grounds, in itself, for targeting that terrorist enabler as a legitimate target for the War on Terror ?

But in any case, the real focus was on Saddam's WMD's. Saddam never did prove his stated position regarding them. Now .. are you seriously going to assert that a terrorist enabler, one refusing to come verifiably clean on WMD stocks, should really HAVE BEEN LEFT ALONE ??

Such is Leftie irrationality. Sadly ... :cuckoo:

[Drummond]

It's sometimes staggering to realize that people don't take the time to read the reports they so adimently oppose. And Assume all knowledge of the facts by NOT even Looking for or at anything else. Since they OBVIOUSLY haven't read it, the facts can makes no impact on them at all. And they remain bombastically ignorant of any view of the world that doesn't fit their theme park cowboys and Indians reality.

I would quote it for them, but whats the point they've already made up there minds that it cannot be true and characterized it in a way that's not as the original presenter stated it. But in a cartoonish light that allows them to feel comfortable in continued ignorance and ridicule the idea with petty partisan jibs and and emotional fearful jingoistic high 5s.

carry on

I'm really sorry to have to say it. But really, this is just blather ..

Look, revelarts, I'm not obligated to swallow irrationality, just because YOU want me to !! Claiming that Israel created a movement dedicated to Israel's destruction is INSANE !!

.. and I've provided you with evidence directly countering your position, that Hamas is, in fact, a product of the Muslim Brotherhood. Here's a challenge - explain why you refuse to accept this .. when THAT makes SENSE !!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It's sometimes staggering to realize that people don't take the time to read the reports they so adimently oppose. And Assume all knowledge of the facts by NOT even Looking for or at anything else. Since they OBVIOUSLY haven't read it, the facts can makes no impact on them at all. And they remain bombastically ignorant of any view of the world that doesn't fit their theme park cowboys and Indians reality.

I would quote it for them, but whats the point they've already made up there minds that it cannot be true and characterized it in a way that's not as the original presenter stated it. But in a cartoonish light that allows them to feel comfortable in continued ignorance and ridicule the idea with petty partisan jibs and and emotional fearful jingoistic high 5s.

carry on

Sorry, I made nothing cartoonish about your presentation nor did I belittle your intelligence. I did express my shock at your refusing to see the insanity in the proposition of a Nation founding an organization dedicated to its OWN eradication! I STILL FIND THAT AMAZING REV..
WAS ENTIRELY NO DISRESPECT INTENDED OR GIVEN IN MY REPLY.
As I do not treat respectable and honorable people that way. Because we disagree in no way puts me into a camp claiming you to be an enemy, a fool or a liar. I simply disagree with you on this just as in the past when I agreed with your posts I did not withhold expressing my agreement.
Now excuse me , as I have a sick child to deal with today.. . Will have to post today while he is sleeping ..--Tyr

[Drummond]

Obama appealed to the emotion. the lack of knowledge(abject ignorance) and the laziness and greed of his followers!
And we saw how successful that was because the media and outside forces trumpeted it as nirvana. The "roman crowds" lapped it up like starved dogs at a sudden feast of heaping fesh meat and bones.
liberalism/socialism /dem party = dumb them down then feed them liberal shit and call it manna from paradise!
My shock was that a person as intelligent as the Rev. didnt dismiss it out of hand after a quick consideration of what it would signify, must signify--== suicide.. -Tyr

I think Revelarts is, to Leftieism, what Jafar is to Islam, Tyr.

Both are capable of arguing intelligently. That said, each is the prisoner of the belief system they're wedded to. They see what they MUST see, in order to keep the core of their beliefs entirely intact, untouched by any intrusion of reality. Selective myopia rules the day.

It's a sad state of affairs. I genuinely hope, revelarts, that you can manage to break free of your imprisonment within a belief system that demands you not see the obvious, but instead believe the utterly incredible.

[red states rule]

I think Revelarts is, to Leftieism, what Jafar is to Islam, Tyr.

Both are capable of arguing intelligently. That said, each is the prisoner of the belief system they're wedded to. They see what they MUST see, in order to keep the core of their beliefs entirely intact, untouched by any intrusion of reality. Selective myopia rules the day.

So it is about Obama. Reverence for the propaganda, the slick image, has predominated over any doses of realism that might otherwise threaten to intrude. The result is as we see it.

The big difference between conservatives and liberals is easy enough o spot. Conservatives simply believe liberals are wrong on the issues. Liberals believe conservatives are evil. It is hard to reason with people who have a preconceived notion you are evil

[revelarts]

Tyr did you read the article from the wall st journal.

I know Drummond didn't and he won't. he might have to "swallow it" or something i guess if he gets to close.

But did you read it?

If you read it please respond to the content of the article.
Not make assumptions about my political affiliation, Obama , terrorism in general, liberals in general. thats stuff's all besidde the point and HOT AIR.
What's the content of the article? Are the facts true or not. It's not a matter of if you or i find it hard to believe.
it makes no difference if it makes sense, DID it happen?

[Drummond]

The big difference between conservatives and liberals is easy enough o spot. Conservatives simply believe liberals are wrong on the issues. Liberals believe conservatives are evil. It is hard to reason with people who have a preconceived notion you are evil:clap:

A very fair point, and thanks for it.

But what I can't properly reconcile, even to myself, is how someone can swallow a nonsense proposition over one far more rational, and be so obediently myopic in the process.

It's almost like considering that if Obama were to go on air and assert that the moon was made of cheese, because evidence was available to show Obama had said it, THIS would make it TRUE.

Conservatives are grounded in reality. Lefties are ONLY similarly grounded on those occasions where reality and preference coincide.

Anyway .. I shall return to this forum later. Perhaps ConHog will have posted something chuckle-worthy in the interim ...

[revelarts]

I think Revelarts is, to Leftieism, what Jafar is to Islam, Tyr.

Both are capable of arguing intelligently. That said, each is the prisoner of the belief system they're wedded to. They see what they MUST see, in order to keep the core of their beliefs entirely intact, untouched by any intrusion of reality. Selective myopia rules the day.

It's a sad state of affairs. I genuinely hope, revelarts, that you can manage to break free of your imprisonment within a belief system that demands you not see the obvious, but instead believe the utterly incredible.


The big difference between conservatives and liberals is easy enough o spot. Conservatives simply believe liberals are wrong on the issues. Liberals believe conservatives are evil. It is hard to reason with people who have a preconceived notion you are evil

i..u..but:facepalm99:

[red states rule]

The Bush haters will stop at nothing to stop their contempt for him - even blaming him for Al and Tipper's divorce
On Tuesday’s CBS evening news, Sharyl Attkisson and Washington Post’s Sally Quinn were discussing the issue. Attkisson said (http://www.thefoxnation.com/tipper-gore/2010/06/01/gores-divorce-blamed-bush) the following on the show:
“it's been ten years since that oddly public passionate kiss at the Democratic convention. That was followed by Gore winning the popular vote for President but losing the electoral vote. Family friend Sally Quinn says that may have done the marriage irreparable harm.””

So It’s Bush’s fault that Gore is getting divorced. Bush made Gore get divorced! So says the media!

The media in our country is so lame! And is that Bush’s fault too?

[Drummond]

Tyr did you read the article from the wall st journal.

I know Drummond didn't and he won't. he might have to "swallow it" or something i guess if he gets to close.

But did you read it?

If you read it please respond to the content of the article.
Not make assumptions about my political affiliation, Obama , terrorism in general, liberals in general. thats stuff's all besidde the point and HOT AIR.
What's the content of the article? Are the facts true or not. It's not a matter of if you or i find it hard to believe.
it makes no difference if it makes sense, DID it happen?

Folks .... regretfully ... I rest my case.

Back later.

[revelarts]

Folks .... regretfully ... I rest my case.

Back later.

Frankly Drummond 1/3 of the post you've made don't make sense,
but they happened anyway.

I rest my case

[red states rule]

Lets not forget about the bridge collapse in MN. All of the bodies had not been pulled from the water when Dems did what Dems do best. Make crap up and blame Bush
It took less than a day for the disastrous bridge collapse in Minneapolis to turn into a political uproar on Capitol Hill.
As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) opened the Thursday session of the Senate, he warned that the bridge disaster was a “wake-up call” regarding infrastructure investment across the country.
Later, Reid and other Democratic leaders went a step further, bashing Republicans for failing to pass a water resources and development act, known as WRDA on Capitol Hill, for seven years, saying that the bill was essential to investing in American infrastructure.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who chairs the appropriations subcommittee that funds transportation programs, slammed President Bush for threatening to veto the transportation bill because it exceeds his initial budget request.
“This is what I worry about every day. The lack of investment in infrastructure is frightening,” Murray said. “This is what [Bush] is threatening to veto -- investment in infrastructure for [roads] we go to work on every day.”
Reid even suggested that Bush has been too distracted by the Iraq war and post-Sept. 11 national security needs to focus on the country’s water, sewer and transportation infrastructure.
“Since 9/11, we have taken our eye off the ball,” Reid said. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5228.html

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I think Revelarts is, to Leftieism, what Jafar is to Islam, Tyr.

Both are capable of arguing intelligently. That said, each is the prisoner of the belief system they're wedded to. They see what they MUST see, in order to keep the core of their beliefs entirely intact, untouched by any intrusion of reality. Selective myopia rules the day.

It's a sad state of affairs. I genuinely hope, revelarts, that you can manage to break free of your imprisonment within a belief system that demands you not see the obvious, but instead believe the utterly incredible.

Ahh my friend , perhaps you see better than I do . I hold out hope and even have belief that Rev. is a bit more than that.
I think he is capable of absorbing the truth unlike so many lib/lefties. I sense he desires truth and thinks he has it . He has even forced me to rethink my views on several occasions. Never my core principles but my specific views on certain subjects. That is not easy to do as I've put much research and consideration into my judgements that are firmly made.
He is not a typical anything IMHO.
I FEAR MORE NOT GIVING HIM ENOUGH CREDIT(RESPECT) THAN I DO GIVING HIM TOO MUCH. For irresponsible consideration would be a greater shame on me than any on him.
Jafar is a totally different animal, he is totally brainwashed into the most despicable and violent religion known to man IMHO!
True , with the REV. IT'LL BE NO EASY TASK and he does put too much faith into the many shades of gray too often but my finally tally is he is true to what he believes to be the truth of the matter. Such intent must be considered..
Perhaps I do too much but until I see myself making great error in doing that I have to respect it.-Tyr

[red states rule]

and we have this from Madeleine Albright
Democrats should blame George W. Bush “forever” for the nation’s problems, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright joked at a Barack Obama campaign rally.
In video (http://youtu.be/CcGtn6IDuEc) posted by a conservative group, Albright discusses traveling to a foreign policy panel event in Missouri, where a man asked her how long Democrats would continue to point the finger at the George W. Bush administration.
<!--/.embed-mod--> <!--/.story-embed--> “I was in Missouri, speaking on behalf of President Truman and the foundation, and I kind of assumed it was a Democratic audience and I was saying many things about the previous administration, some of which I said here,” Albright said. “All of a sudden, this man gets up and says: ‘So how long are you people going to blame the previous administration?’ And I said: ‘Forever.’”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79937.html#ixzz2IVRmjTRR

[revelarts]

Tyr,
Again I appreciate it but Drummond Knows better .
If you disagree with any of his POVs your a Liberal lefty that just can see reality and hates conservatives. Red knows too. That just the way it is. If i continue disagreeing with him i may become SubHuman I feel some of that coming on I'm starting to lose my natural emotions here.
wait...

Ok I'm back.
But Tyr, the fact that some of the items i've presented actually made you think a bit differently even slightly puts your Right wing st cred in question buddy. you may be a closet liberal or something.

the fact is some people don't fit into Drummonds Boxes, so he makes them fit. he's got no room for anything or anyone to fit outside of his vision of the world, it seems to me.

Red
you know better you really do, someone points out that Bush has grey hair and he's all of a sudden he's a liberal. I know your uber partisan but C'mon Red.

[red states rule]

Rev - I read this and thought of you
Canadian Boy Forced to Endure Discomfort, Drowsiness in Gitmo Torture ChamberBy now, everyone has seen the horrific video (http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=6544) of a 15-year old Canadian boy being tortured at Bush's Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camp. However, many remain blissfully unaware of the tragic story that led to his illegal and immoral capture at the hands of our babykilling U.S. troops.
It all began when a scrappy young Omar Khadr was goofing around in an Afghani warzone, as all boisterous young men his age are apt do, when one of the grenades he was juggling to impress some local girls just happened to explode. Sergeant First Class Christopher James Speer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_J._Speer), who was not wearing a helmet at the time, was killed in the explosion. But in a way, SFC Speer got off easy, for he was never forced to stay up way past his bedtime and endure hours of annoying questions in an uncomfortable chair while tears poured from his big, puppy-dog eyes and wails for his mommy echoed throughout the darkened corridors of Bush's underground torture chamber.
"I can't move my arms!" Khadr wails in the chilling video, lifting up his shirt with his toes to reveal either his hairy man-nipples, or the fading scars of torture at the hands of Bush's goons. "Help me! Help me!"
If it wasn't for the court-ordered release of this damning video, Khadr's cries for help would have never been answered. The heartbreaking story of his sleepless nights and general discomfort would have never been revealed. Nor would the family of of SFC Speer have an opportunity to apologize for the suffering young Khadr was forced to endure because their Gung-Ho son decided to interrupt an innocent teenage slumber party at a baby-milk factory.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Khadr doesn't deserve some share of the guilt here. But he must be considered innocent until proven guilty by the World Court, and then released back into the wilds of his native Great White North to suckle upon its abundance of hooker-fed bacon and sniveling progressives. (http://www.alternet.org/rights/91659/?ses=5553d3c4c93dfeefe419b28ec6d38e41) http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2008/07/canadian-boy-fo.html

[revelarts]

Well I've thought better of you and haven't tried to mis-characterize your position Red.
You called me Chamberlain, ready to let Millions die.
I pointed out HOW UNLIKE Iraq and Germany were as a military threat.
Now your trying to say I think the teenage boy in Gitmo (did the boy have some vital war info Red? no.) needs an apology from the parents of a dead U.S. soldier.

You guys are unreal.

[red states rule]

Well I've thought better of you and haven't tried to mis-characterize your position Red.
You called me Chamberlain, ready to let Millions die.
I pointed out HOW UNLIKE Iraq and Germany were as a military threat.
Now your trying to say I think the teenage boy in Gitmo (did the boy have some vital war info Red? no.) needs an apology from the parents of a dead U.S. soldier.

You guys are unreal.

Here is another I read this and thought of Rev
What Part of "Safe House" Doesn't Bush Understand?In an act eerily reminiscent of the infamous “shock and awe” campaign that marked the beginning of Bush’s illegal and immoral war, two laser-guided bombs fell from the Iraqi sky yesterday, shattering the morning calm and killing 12 innocent civilians as they slept peacefully in their beds. By pure chance, one of them just happened to be Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the former Jordanian journalist blamed for numerous “terrorist attacks” around Iraq. Zarqawi was using the home as a “safe house”, a place where he could relax away from the probing eyes and eavesdropping ears of an administration determined to infringe upon his constitutional Right to Privacy. After years on the run from the Great Satan, at last he could spend a little quality time with his wife and kids, toss a couple burgers on the barbie, and share a few brewskis with his buddies while sawing heads off an infidel or two. After all, that's what "safe houses" are for. But instead of a little R & R with his friends and family, Big Al got 1000 lbs of TNT dropped right onto his Nike high-tops.
It's hard to be surprised anymore by Bush's endless stream of atrocities. But how far have we sank as a nation, how far has Bush dragged us down into the gutter, when we don't even recognize the concept of "sanctuary" anymore? I suppose the Shrub will drop a daisy-cutter on a home for battered wives next. Or perhaps nuke another orphanage.
In his maddening stupidity, Bush insists this will "turn the tide" in Iraq. If anything, Zarqawi's murder will only perpetuate the Giant Circle of Violence. I'm not entirely sure what that is, but I know it's very, very bad - very, very round - and Bush is completely to blame for it. http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2006/06/zarkcockatoo.html

[Robert A Whit]

And Saddam didn't kill all the Kurds either. So i don't know what Drummond is talking about. Drummond your point is baseless going by your own standard. There are so many Kurds in Iraq there's been concern of them forming a separate state.

Look Drummond I'm finding out, a little late maybe, that you are not seriously interested in ANY information that doesn't agree with your positions. I posted a confession from an Israeli official as to their complicity in Hamas's inception/growth, written in one of our most conservative and respected mainstream newspapers and you deny the facts in black and white completely and consider the notion crazy.

Seems like i'm talking to a wall of partisan beliefs instead of a human being being that's honestly thinking about ALL the facts available to him and trying to access their meaning. But you'd rather force them them fit or outright reject them as crazy or liberal because it conflicts with your current vision of the world. It's just frustrating pointing out a rock on the ground to someone who denies it's there. and calls you crazy for pointing it out. Drummond I can appreciate your patriotism but basically, for what ever reason you don't seem to be an honest player. I'll take that into account going forward.


You suffer the problem of using opinion by some other person as if the opinion is proven fact.

It has lead you to blame Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, though oh hell no, not Colin Powell, as if they plotted to pull the wool over the eyes of the world in order to invade Saddam Hussein land. Why call it Iraq when clearly it was his land?

Did you read American Soldier by the Clinton appointed General who fought those wars?

I bet you have not read his book. Did you see the back up book by General Mike De Long who was second in command? One reason they wrote those books was to defeat all the bullshit put out by Democrats and other Bush haters.

But wait, more than them, Bush published his own account and so did Cheney and Rumsfeld.

The right way to do research is to view all information. Franks book came out first and he had no reason to lie. And he explains the Saddam situation very well.

Stop banking on single handed accounts by malcontents.

[Robert A Whit]

President Bush put his hand to freeing over fifty million humans from dictators.

I call that a good record.

[ConHog]

Drummond it truly saddens me that you believe the dishonesty you have displayed in this thread is an acceptable form of debate.

I had a big response with multiple quotes from you showing your obvious lies and contradictions in your attempts to prove that what I posted was wrong, but I deleted it in favor of this response.

The US has absolutely in our past participated in genocide as well as the use of WMDs. If you care to debate that with me I'm sure Jim will accommodate us in the appropriate forum where your dishonest tactics are frowned upon. If you instead choose to continue your present tactics in this forum, I will merely laugh and move on.

[aboutime]

Drummond it truly saddens me that you believe the dishonesty you have displayed in this thread is an acceptable form of debate.

I had a big response with multiple quotes from you showing your obvious lies and contradictions in your attempts to prove that what I posted was wrong, but I deleted it in favor of this response.

The US has absolutely in our past participated in genocide as well as the use of WMDs. If you care to debate that with me I'm sure Jim will accommodate us in the appropriate forum where your dishonest tactics are frowned upon. If you instead choose to continue your present tactics in this forum, I will merely laugh and move on.


Why would Drummond waste his time dealing with the Devil? You were up to no-good before, and nothing has changed now that you are back. Pretending something has changed.

[tailfins]

Why would Drummond waste his time dealing with the Devil? You were up to no-good before, and nothing has changed now that you are back. Pretending something has changed.


As someone who doesn't care very much, I have to ask what CornDog did? Does he post hammers and sickles? How does he compare to Gabby or Windsong? Some on here seem seriously ticked off at him.

[ConHog]

As someone who doesn't care very much, I have to ask what CornDog did? Does he post hammers and sickles? How does he compare to Gabby or Windsong? Some on here seem seriously ticked off at him.

ConHog posts facts and laughs at those who let partisan platforms define their opinions.

[tailfins]

ConHog posts facts and laughs at those who let partisan platforms define their opinions.

If that's what gives you a hard on have at it.

[ConHog]

If that's what gives you a hard on have at it.

I don't get sexual gratification from a message board. Well , unless Gabby s around RAWR

[jimnyc]

Sorry, Conhog, but I believe I have a right to state, and to mean, what I CHOOSE to state, and to mean. Oh, I daresay you find it convenient to alter contexts according to your own wishes and needs, but some of us don't choose to resort to such a tactic at the drop of a hat.


A) I didn't alter your post in any way, shape, or form - if you feel I did , that is against the rules, report me


I beg to differ. When you claim I altered the context of your post, you in fact claimed I altered your post.


Drummond it truly saddens me that you believe the dishonesty you have displayed in this thread is an acceptable form of debate.

I am only responding to this one portion of you 2 debating. Not taking sides or getting involved, just pointing something out as I see it. As I read through this thread, it sounded to me like Drummond was stating you quoted him, but then replied in a different context. Specifically what, I don't know, but that's how I read it. I don't think he was implying that you altered a physical post by another when quoting them, only in how you replied.

[ConHog]

I am only responding to this one portion of you 2 debating. Not taking sides or getting involved, just pointing something out as I see it. As I read through this thread, it sounded to me like Drummond was stating you quoted him, but then replied in a different context. Specifically what, I don't know, but that's how I read it. I don't think he was implying that you altered a physical post by another when quoting them, only in how you replied.

His exact statement was that I altered the context of his post. Then he later posted that he never claimed I altered anything.

Altering is altering.

[jimnyc]

His exact statement was that I altered the context of his post. Then he later posted that he never claimed I altered anything.

Altering is altering.

If we were having a conversation, discussing the Italian mafia, and you ask me a question, and I answer discussing the Japanese mafia, that would be altering the conversation. It doesn't mean I changed what you said, only that the answer took things in a different direction. Keep in mind, Drummond is from the UK and speaks a tad different than us. I honestly didn't see an attempt there to mean you literally altered something.

[ConHog]

If we were having a conversation, discussing the Italian mafia, and you ask me a question, and I answer discussing the Japanese mafia, that would be altering the conversation. It doesn't mean I changed what you said, only that the answer took things in a different direction. Keep in mind, Drummond is from the UK and speaks a tad different than us. I honestly didn't see an attempt there to mean you literally altered something.

Either way not a big deal to me. But he DID write that I altered the context of his post. I did no such thing. The context of his posts stand on their own.

[revelarts]

...If you instead choose to continue your present tactics in this forum, I will merely laugh and move on.

in general you can expect more of the same Con.
If you show Drummond facts that he doesn't dismiss/ignore out of hand no matter what the source, and he admit to it. It still will never be enough to correct him. And He'll decided your a liberal or worse and wonder aloud at your sad inability to see you faults. Then he'll quickly forget all the facts your presented that he formally admitted corrected a bit of his assertions. And repeat whatever he said before as if it never happened.
At that point one or 2 others of like mind will forget all contrary facts and start a around of insults -mild to heavy- against the person that disagreed -never dealing with the facts again. And then start singing their blindly partisan assertions like a mantra.

It's a wonder to behold Con.

[ConHog]

in general you can expect more of the same Con.
If you show Drummond facts that he doesn't dismiss/ignore out of hand no matter what the source, and he admit to it. It still will never be enough to correct him. And He'll decided your a liberal or worse and wonder aloud at your sad inability to see you faults. Then he'll quickly forget all the facts your presented that he formally admitted corrected a bit of his assertions. And repeat whatever he said before as if it never happened.
At that point one or 2 others of like mind will forget all contrary facts and start a around of insults -mild to heavy- against the person that disagreed -never dealing with the facts again. And then start singing their blindly partisan assertions like a mantra.

It's a wonder to behold Con.

Yes, gotta love their hypocrisy and dishonesty.

[Drummond]

Ahh my friend , perhaps you see better than I do . I hold out hope and even have belief that Rev. is a bit more than that.
I think he is capable of absorbing the truth unlike so many lib/lefties. I sense he desires truth and thinks he has it . He has even forced me to rethink my views on several occasions. Never my core principles but my specific views on certain subjects. That is not easy to do as I've put much research and consideration into my judgements that are firmly made.
He is not a typical anything IMHO.
I FEAR MORE NOT GIVING HIM ENOUGH CREDIT(RESPECT) THAN I DO GIVING HIM TOO MUCH. For irresponsible consideration would be a greater shame on me than any on him.
Jafar is a totally different animal, he is totally brainwashed into the most despicable and violent religion known to man IMHO!
True , with the REV. IT'LL BE NO EASY TASK and he does put too much faith into the many shades of gray too often but my finally tally is he is true to what he believes to be the truth of the matter. Such intent must be considered..
Perhaps I do too much but until I see myself making great error in doing that I have to respect it.-Tyr

Perhaps you do have history with revelarts which shows you that he can be more reasonable than the average Leftie, Tyr. I respect your position.

In this case, though, I see no evidence that revelarts is departing from bog standard methodology. He's sticking to a position that makes no sense, is very aware that it makes no sense, but regardless, is asserting a so-called 'truth' that actually demands a suspension of logic in order to believe in it. Well .. I am a rational human being, and I will take rational thought over Leftie propaganda any day of the week.

To suppose that Israel would create a terrorist grouping, an Islamist one at that, which has as a core reason for existing the destruction of Israel (!!!!) is completely insane. I mean ... how can I put this any more clearly ???

Israel's whole history, from 1948 onwards, has shown us Israel's determination to prevail, even to thrive, against very considerable odds and hostility. Now, because some Leftie wants us to believe it, we're supposed to turn our back on rationality and instead believe that they created something designed to work to harm them, even (if they ever get the chance) DESTROY them ???

Tyr, if revelarts is open to debate, open to reason, then - even at this late stage - let him be open to it now, and turn his back on this insanity. And let him read and reread what I've already posted on this instead.

But Tyr .. don't hold your breath. Revelarts - regardless of how he may have debated in the past - THIS time, is sticking with preferred, if also crazy, propaganda, and not only will he not deviate from it, but will try even harder to push his 'case'. He wants people to believe something nuts - and in true Leftie fashion, is oblivious to truth as an act of will, AND wants the same reaction from others.

Come on, revelarts, prove me wrong .. why don't you ?

But you won't, and we both know it. You'll continue to push this craziness and never deviate. See what you want to see, not what IS. It's The Leftie Way.

[Drummond]

You suffer the problem of using opinion by some other person as if the opinion is proven fact.

It has lead you to blame Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, though oh hell no, not Colin Powell, as if they plotted to pull the wool over the eyes of the world in order to invade Saddam Hussein land. Why call it Iraq when clearly it was his land?

Did you read American Soldier by the Clinton appointed General who fought those wars?

I bet you have not read his book. Did you see the back up book by General Mike De Long who was second in command? One reason they wrote those books was to defeat all the bullshit put out by Democrats and other Bush haters.

But wait, more than them, Bush published his own account and so did Cheney and Rumsfeld.

The right way to do research is to view all information. Franks book came out first and he had no reason to lie. And he explains the Saddam situation very well.

Stop banking on single handed accounts by malcontents.:clap::clap::clap:

Exactly !

[Drummond]

Drummond it truly saddens me that you believe the dishonesty you have displayed in this thread is an acceptable form of debate.

I had a big response with multiple quotes from you showing your obvious lies and contradictions in your attempts to prove that what I posted was wrong, but I deleted it in favor of this response.

The US has absolutely in our past participated in genocide as well as the use of WMDs. If you care to debate that with me I'm sure Jim will accommodate us in the appropriate forum where your dishonest tactics are frowned upon. If you instead choose to continue your present tactics in this forum, I will merely laugh and move on.

With the sense of humour you've already demonstrated, I don't doubt that you'll be doing a lot of laughing.

ConHog, you talk in generalised terms about 'dishonesty', 'lies', 'contradictions' .. I see you claim (and this is an exact quote) 'The US has absolutely in our past participated in genocide as well as the use of WMDs.'

... OK. A challenge, then (and I don't care where you debate it .. here or elsewhere ..) .. put some meat on those bones, why don't you ? Come on ... cite supportive evidence for what you're asserting. List it for me.

[ConHog]

:clap::clap::clap:

Exactly !

Yes , exactly. Evidence that agrees with your preconceived ideas is the only evidence that matters. I agree!!!

[gabosaurus]

The GW Bush historical legacy: The blood of thousands will always be on his hands.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9jbG-c2Ned4/Sj-1h4xCPEI/AAAAAAAACI0/sXa9dF2dUjA/s320/blood_on_BUSH_hands.jpg

[Drummond]

Why would Drummond waste his time dealing with the Devil? You were up to no-good before, and nothing has changed now that you are back. Pretending something has changed.

Maybe you're exactly right, Aboutime.

But I'm a big believer in seeing my opposition flounder through their own failings. Let ConHog provide some for our entertainment. Already, he's proven to me a lack of capacity for logic.

[ConHog]

Maybe you're exactly right, Aboutime.

But I'm a big believer in seeing my opposition flounder through their own failings. Let ConHog provide some for our entertainment. Already, he's proven to me a lack of capacity for logic.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?38767-Staff-actions-going-forward

[Drummond]

The GW Bush historical legacy: The blood of thousands will always be on his hands.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9jbG-c2Ned4/Sj-1h4xCPEI/AAAAAAAACI0/sXa9dF2dUjA/s320/blood_on_BUSH_hands.jpg

... and Saddam was a saint, and terrorists' 'human rights' are ALL important ... yeahh ... all bog standard Leftie rot.

Have you considered launching a 'be kind to terrorists' week ? Maybe inviting some round for tea and grenades ?

[ConHog]

... and Saddam was a saint, and terrorists' 'human rights' are ALL important ... yeahh ... all bog standard Leftie rot.

Have you considered launching a 'be kind to terrorists' week ? Maybe inviting some round for tea and grenades ?

Gabby is anti terrorist there bruh

[Drummond]

I am only responding to this one portion of you 2 debating. Not taking sides or getting involved, just pointing something out as I see it. As I read through this thread, it sounded to me like Drummond was stating you quoted him, but then replied in a different context. Specifically what, I don't know, but that's how I read it. I don't think he was implying that you altered a physical post by another when quoting them, only in how you replied.

A fair summary, Jim, and thanks.

[Drummond]

Gabby is anti terrorist there bruh

In that case, she should be in favour of measures taken against it. The War on Terror is the best measure we've seen.

Gabby, therefore, can indicate her total support for the War on Terror, and prove you right. I look forward to her doing just that ...

[ConHog]

In that case, she should be in favour of measures taken against it. The War on Terror is the best measure we've seen.

Gabby, therefore, can indicate her total support for the War on Terror, and prove you right. I look forward to her doing just that ...

Thinking BUsh was an asshole does not equal not supporting the war on terror.

Also, one can support the war against terrorism while not agreeing with some of the measures taken in that war.

[Robert A Whit]

The GW Bush historical legacy: The blood of thousands will always be on his hands.



Think so?

If you truly feel that way, you must be insanely furious at Obama over the way he kills them and gets our troops killed.

One would think you would have wanted it all ended.

[Drummond]

Thinking BUsh was an asshole does not equal not supporting the war on terror.

Also, one can support the war against terrorism while not agreeing with some of the measures taken in that war.

1st point ... though your statement seems fair, on balance, it actually isn't. Categorising a President who does EXACTLY the right thing by responding to terrorism with a deserved 'War on Terror' 'an asshole' ... is surely as unfair as it gets.

If she's supportive of the War on Terror, she can also show support for those in charge of it. Not take a line which denigrates those very people .. a line, moreover, which plays into the hands of the enemy.

2nd point .. covered to an extent already. Disagreement is all very well, but can also have a subversive effect. UNITY matters in efforts of this kind.

Besides, I'm hard-pressed to fault Bush even slightly, and I'm struggling to even imagine grounds for fairly doing so. I believe that, in Bush, you could most probably not have wished for better leadership.

[Drummond]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?38767-Staff-actions-going-forward

Link viewed, reply posted.

[ConHog]

Think so?

If you truly feel that way, you must be insanely furious at Obama over the way he kills them and gets our troops killed.

One would think you would have wanted it all ended.

Psst sane people are quite capable of disproving of actions of people regardless of political affiliation. Meaning sane people don't just run around yelling Obama bad Bush good, nor the other way around. Both have good and bad.

Sad that you can't see that.

[aboutime]

This is for everyone who demonstrated how much they HATE themselves, and Blame others...
4367

[red states rule]

Another good one for the Bush haters
CBS: Memos May Be Fakes

Last week, the world was kicked in the pants like a retarded kid in the schoolyard by the discovery of official memos proving that Bush skipped a physical exam during his service in the Texas Air National Guard. Rather rightly believed this information to be tighter than the lugnuts on Daddy's '67 Ford Fairlane. He was 100% certain it was the Big Burrito, the last feather on the rooster tail, raising new questions about Bush's ability to wage a so-called "War on Terror". Now thanks to an internal investigation more thorough than a rectal exam at a gay bathhouse, CBS has come to the sudden realization that they were taken like a cheap New Orleans floozy. We owe CBS a big ol' Daniel Webster ceegar and a hearty "kudos" for coming public with their findings before any serious damage could be done to John Kerry's campaign. Now those behind this whole Alabama goat-dance must step forward and take responsibility. Heads must roll and apologies must be issued for what has all the earmarks of partisan smear campaign nasty enough to gag a buzzard.
So, Mr. Bush, Dan Rather patiently awaits your apology, though I wouldn't recommend he hold his breath. Bush is as stubborn as a three-legged mule in a hat race and never owns up to his mistakes, letting decent joes like Rather take the fall for them. If Bush had simply confessed months ago to all the accusations leveled against him, CBS would never have had to go digging like Fido in Grandma's flowerbed for any falsified evidence to back up their facts. Thanks to Bush, a man known for his unbiased reporting, high journalistic standards, and a pursuit of the truth more relentless than an Apache in a scalping contest has had to do the news for the past week with a look on his face like he just crapped his Edward R. Murrow underoos. Thanks to Bush, a man loved worldwide for his 60-year career of professional integrity now gets looks dirtier than a greased piglet on Easter Sunday. In one short week, Dan Rather's stellar reputation has been torn to shreds like a black man dragged behind a pick-up truck in Jasper, Texas.
A good man sits alone in his New York penthouse tonight, looking sadder than a wet cat in a microwave. His flinty gray eyes gaze mournfully at his 19 emmys and countless other awards for journalism, wondering where it's all gone - and if he'll ever get it back.
How many more lives will be ruined before the Shrub admits that his military record is spottier than Angela Lansbury's thighs? http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2004/09/smear.html

[Robert A Whit]

1st point ... though your statement seems fair, on balance, it actually isn't. Categorising a President who does EXACTLY the right thing by responding to terrorism with a deserved 'War on Terror' 'an asshole' ... is surely as unfair as it gets.

If she's supportive of the War on Terror, she can also show support for those in charge of it. Not take a line which denigrates those very people .. a line, moreover, which plays into the hands of the enemy.

2nd point .. covered to an extent already. Disagreement is all very well, but can also have a subversive effect. UNITY matters in efforts of this kind.

Besides, I'm hard-pressed to fault Bush even slightly, and I'm struggling to even imagine grounds for fairly doing so. I believe that, in Bush, you could most probably not have wished for better leadership.

Is this Conthog a Democrat? It is a lie that GW Bush is an asshole. But worse than that, the man freed more than 50 million humans. How many has Obama freed?

One only has to watch the support for Bush he got from the troops then watch what Obama gets from them to spot a vast difference.

I don't get it. Bush actually engaged in a fight pro freedom. That is a good legacy to have for any president.

[ConHog]

Is this Conthog a Democrat? It is a lie that GW Bush is an asshole. But worse than that, the man freed more than 50 million humans. How many has Obama freed?

One only has to watch the support for Bush he got from the troops then watch what Obama gets from them to spot a vast difference.

I don't get it. Bush actually engaged in a fight pro freedom. That is a good legacy to have for any president.

What?? Obama is an asshole as well. I'm sorry that so many on here don't understand the concept of agreeing and disagreeing with some actions from either side; but that doesn't change the facts.

The Patriot Act says Bush is/was an asshole if nothing else. So what? Doesn't mean he didn't do some good things. Likewise , Obama is not completely bad.

[Kathianne]

What?? Obama is an asshole as well. I'm sorry that so many on here don't understand the concept of agreeing and disagreeing with some actions from either side; but that doesn't change the facts.

The Patriot Act says Bush is/was an asshole if nothing else. So what? Doesn't mean he didn't do some good things. Likewise , Obama is not completely bad.

Great. What did you like about Bush? What do you like about Obama?

[Robert A Whit]

Psst sane people are quite capable of disproving of actions of people regardless of political affiliation. Meaning sane people don't just run around yelling Obama bad Bush good, nor the other way around. Both have good and bad.

Sad that you can't see that.


I have not been tested on either issue. So how can you assert what you just did?

My complaint is with those who constantly berate Bush. Do you qualify?

I have offered some reasons why Bush was correct. Thus far I have not read any rebuttals.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=608986#post608986)
Is this Conthog a Democrat? It is a lie that GW Bush is an asshole. But worse than that, the man freed more than 50 million humans. How many has Obama freed?

One only has to watch the support for Bush he got from the troops then watch what Obama gets from them to spot a vast difference.

I don't get it. Bush actually engaged in a fight pro freedom. That is a good legacy to have for any president.



Reply by Conthog


What?? Obama is an asshole as well. I'm sorry that so many on here don't understand the concept of agreeing and disagreeing with some actions from either side; but that doesn't change the facts.

The Patriot Act says Bush is/was an asshole if nothing else. So what? Doesn't mean he didn't do some good things. Likewise , Obama is not completely bad.

The Patriot Act was the favorite tool of democrats who wanted to use it only to beat up on Bush.

No, once the Patriot Act is clearly undersood, neither president deserves to be called an asshole over that particular act.

As Kath asks, make a case for Obama.

I made a very good case for Bush so it is up to you to defend Obama.