Duchess Jack Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 There has to be some middle ground between H8 world and skins world. Is there ANYTHING regarding what all is going on in the world that the left and right can agree on. Can you all cooperatively embrace ANYTHING as fact and not propaganda? I am just curious. I'll start - we undoubtably (for whatever reason) fabricated reasons to go to Iraq. Seems pretty clear to me. Can anyone on the right or left dispute this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Well I can tell you this, the majority is swinging out of Bush's favor more and more each day: link I firmly believe Dubya jumped the gun partially due to the "revenge factor" for his daddy. Great line from the linked article, above: For the first time, a majority, 55 percent, also said Bush has done more to divide the country than to unite it. Nice job, Dubya. Almost makes me want to move to Canada. Not quite, but almost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selly Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 One thing I wonder is this. If Shrub hadn't gone the "They've got WMD" route and instead had come out and said," Saddam's an *** who's ignoring UN resolutions, killing and oppressing his people and we're going to take him out because we don't want him around anymore." would the US's domestic situation be any different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meat Face Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 One thing I wonder is this. If Shrub hadn't gone the "They've got WMD" route and instead had come out and said," Saddam's an *** who's ignoring UN resolutions, killing and oppressing his people and we're going to take him out because we don't want him around anymore." would the US's domestic situation be any different? 836372[/snapback] yes. although, technically he did say that. It's just that he's pushed the WMD thing wayyyy more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 One thing I wonder is this. If Shrub hadn't gone the "They've got WMD" route and instead had come out and said," Saddam's an *** who's ignoring UN resolutions, killing and oppressing his people and we're going to take him out because we don't want him around anymore." would the US's domestic situation be any different? 836372[/snapback] uhh, that's exactly what they did say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 I'll start - we undoubtably (for whatever reason) fabricated reasons to go to Iraq. I firmly believe Dubya jumped the gun partially due to the "revenge factor" for his daddy. Are you two fekking momo fektards reetarded or simply just stupid doucebags? WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq. The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world. "Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said. http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/ "The vote is the vote. I voted to authorize (force). It was the right vote, and the reason I mentioned the threat is that we gave the--we had to give life to the threat. If there wasn't a legitimate threat, Saddam Hussein was not going to allow inspectors in. John Skerry 2003. Now shut your yapping toofholes and go suck some sheet outa some friendly communists ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted June 9, 2005 Author Share Posted June 9, 2005 I will add from the other side - that the left is looking for the bad - a simple truth but the truth. But I believe that this is only counter Bush's no acknowleging the bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 It's not just WMDs. It can't be otherwise there's no f'n reason to be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Are you two fekking momo fektards reetarded or simply just stupid doucebags?http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/ John Skerry 2003. Now shut your yapping toofholes and go suck some sheet outa some friendly communists ass. 836379[/snapback] Can you quote some more people who were wrong? Like you. You were wrong too. Only you sounded stupider doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted June 9, 2005 Author Share Posted June 9, 2005 What does everyone think Bush would do differently if he had it all to do again just following a pretty successful campaign in Afganistan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10g_DBA Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 H8tank, have you ever thought about teaching a conversational English class? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Here is an interesting article in from USA Today that discusses the Downing Street memo, and gives some perspective about when it was released, and why so many of the major news agencies were scared to run with it. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ir_x.htm?csp=36 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 H8tank, have you ever thought about teaching a conversational English class? 836396[/snapback] Kids these days have enough problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 I firmly believe Dubya jumped the gun partially due to the "revenge factor" for his daddy. 836362[/snapback] Are you two fekking momo fektards reetarded or simply just stupid doucebags?http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/ John Skerry 2003. Now shut your yapping toofholes and go suck some sheet outa some friendly communists ass. 836379[/snapback] Learn how to read and comprehend the English language before loosening the spigot on your diarrhea dispenser, H8. I said "partially", hence, I'm of the opinion that Dubya's judgment may have been slightly clouded by what happened when Poppa Bush was in office. There were clearly other reagents that caused us to go in. No one's arguing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulOttCarruth Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Everyone should be able to agree that the Bush Administration underestimated the insurgency and the cost of this war -- especially in terms of American lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Everyone should be able to agree that the Bush Administration underestimated the insurgency and the cost of this war -- especially in terms of American lives. 836404[/snapback] I think that's reflected in the polls. I think that we can also agree that the Bush Administration went to great lengths to prevent any negative information from being released or confirmed during the election season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 I think that's reflected in the polls. I think that we can also agree that the Bush Administration went to great lengths to prevent any negative information from being released or confirmed during the election season. 836407[/snapback] Bush Administration. BA. Can we just shorten it down to "BA"? Actually, let's now just use " " when discussing Bush and his Administration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 I think that we can also agree that the Bush Administration went to great lengths to prevent any negative information from being released or confirmed during the election season. yeah, I mean it's not like there are no reporters over there or anything, nor 150,000 US personnel with families they talk to back home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10g_DBA Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 USA TODAY chose not to publish anything about the memo before today for several reasons, says Jim Cox, the newspaper's senior assignment editor for foreign news. "We could not obtain the memo or a copy of it from a reliable source," Cox says. "There was no explicit confirmation of its authenticity from (Blair's office). And it was disclosed four days before the British elections, raising concerns about the timing." Why is this so hard for The New York Times and The Washington Post and all the alphabet news stations? If it's verifiably true, print it. If ya can't prove it, then, in the words of a wise man, "shut your yapping toofholes." In my book, USA TODAY just gained some credibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Everyone should be able to agree that the Bush Administration underestimated the insurgency and the cost of this war -- especially in terms of American lives. 836404[/snapback] i'm pretty sure they did underestimate the insurgency, but i'm not so sure about that last part. i don't know what the casualty estimates were before the war, but i seriously doubt if 1600 or whatever is blowing them out of the water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Why is this so hard for The New York Times and The Washington Post and all the alphabet news stations? If it's verifiably true, print it. If ya can't prove it, then, in the words of a wise man, "shut your yapping toofholes." In my book, USA TODAY just gained some credibility. 836413[/snapback] I was thinking the exact thing. An honest fishwrap? Nowadays? God forbid. I actually like reading USA Today. And not just 'cuz of the purty colors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Here is an interesting article in from USA Today that discusses the Downing Street memo, and gives some perspective about when it was released, and why so many of the major news agencies were scared to run with it. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ir_x.htm?csp=36 836398[/snapback] That is awesome. Better than awesome, uber-awesome. I'll translate uber-awesome for you ==> see mega-awesome. Them funky English and their mangling of the language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 I think that we can also agree that the Bush Administration went to great lengths to prevent any negative information from being released or confirmed during the election season. 836407[/snapback] we should be able to agree that the ny times went to great lengths to make sure as much negative informatuion as possible came out during the election season. al qa-qa, anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seminoles Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 we should be able to agree that the ny times went to great lengths to make sure as much negative informatuion as possible came out during the election season. al qa-qa, anyone? 836418[/snapback] i was wondering when the az man was going to talk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 i was wondering when the az man was going to talk 836421[/snapback] sheet, most of these guys wonder when i'm going to stop talking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.