[Flieteewell]

What if Bush did lie? You know to get re-elected, maybe the war was just a Karl Rove election trick.
Boy those democrats were dumb to fall for it, all's fair in politics though, and no one got hurt, that mattered.

[Gadarett]

didn't something like this come up in the presidential debates? Kerry did vote to give the pres authority to go to war, but then said he didn't expect the pres to go to war....without uh going though every last option before going to war? -eh yeah read the whole article and it said something like this. Bottom line Bush took us to war....you can't go blaming everyone except bush for things not going peachy.

But yeah this board is getting pretty lame with all the hate...not much discussion anymore...lots of name caling and talking smack. I get along with conservatives fine in real life, so I'm sure the aholes I can't stand on here are probably cool guys/girls.

[tofRobbroolve]

What the hell's up with these Democrat hate threads?!

I think moderators need to put this in check. You don't need to share these freeper articles here. We know exactly where to go if we want to get a hold of Democrat hate articles.

There's no scandal or controversy in this thread, it's just stupid freeper hate. Nothing poignant to discuss really.

You refer to this as hate? What about the hate that comes out of these democrats mouths, who totally supported the invasion of Iraq, based on the same intelligence they had been hearing for years from the Clinton administration, while Bill Clinton & Al Gore were in office?

This is the exact same intelligence & intelligence sources that the Bush administration had. When we went into Iraq & did not find the masses of WMD that both administrations expected to find, these above aforementioned democrats ran like a bunch of rats leaving a sinking ship, with President Bush holding the bag.

For nothing more than partisan policital gain, they have now accused WMD intelligence of being made up in Dick Chenney's war room. Even though there have been 3 bipartisan committee hearings over the same issue. In all 3 hearings, the report imphatically states that intelligence sources were in no way pressured by anyone within the current administration.

In effect, the above aforementioned have put our troops that are currently in harms way, at much more risk. They have encouraged the enemy, by trouncing on the American public with a pack of lies, in order for us to pull out prior to achieving the goal. They are henceforth, extending the length of the war, not only in casualites, (military & civilian), plus the financial cost of the war.

And if you don't think this is "hate", then we are really on a different page.

These democrats do this, only because they want their power back in the congress, the senate & the White House. And they have people like you, who will go to any lengths to believe their pack of lies.

[arrasleds]

didn't something like this come up in the presidential debates? Kerry did vote to give the pres authority to go to war, but then said he didn't expect the pres to go to war....without uh going though every last option before going to war? -eh yeah read the whole article and it said something like this. Bottom line Bush took us to war....you can't go blaming everyone except bush for things not going peachy.

But yeah this board is getting pretty lame with all the hate...not much discussion anymore...lots of name caling and talking smack. I get along with conservatives fine in real life, so I'm sure the aholes I can't stand on here are probably cool guys/girls.

Kerry is nothing more than a crowd poll pleaser. Last week, he stated that we should start pulling troops out of Iraq, the week before he wanted to send more.

So, I guess he really voted for more troops before he voted for less.

And if you actually believe Kerry's statement that "he voted for the authorization to go to war, "but didn't actually believe that the invasion was on the schedule", then you really need to pull your head out of that dark hole.

Kerry is a very POLISHED politician, that will do or say anything to whatever crowd he is in front off. He probably knows every poll by memory. Only very stupid people would believe anything he had to say. And I must add here, he is going to be memorizing every coming poll, because he actually believes he can win the Presidency. God forbid!

[derty]

What if Bush did lie? You know to get re-elected, maybe the war was just a Karl Rove election trick.
Boy those democrats were dumb to fall for it, all's fair in politics though, and no one got hurt, that mattered.

I'm not sure I get you ...in Iraq we've lost over 2,000 military personnel and many, many more have been injured - some likely permanently. Their families and friends are also hurt.

I think this administration has hurt more than a few ...

[h98hhYxM]

It's part of war. People die. Go talk to the 100s of thousands lying in Saddam's mass graves. Are you willing to become a slave to avoid conflict? Sheesh! What ever happened to principles?

[Rinkeliacasse]

It's part of war. People die. Go talk to the 100s of thousands lying in Saddam's mass graves. Are you willing to become a slave to avoid conflict? Sheesh! What ever happened to principles?

I guess we have to pick our battles ...there are numerous conflicts around the world where people are massacred and we haven't invaded them.

This is a policy discussion; please don't question my principles as I haven't questioned yours. We're Americans. We want what's best for our country. We are both exercising our freedom of speech and opinion.

I just think we took our eye off the ball when we shifted "the war on terror" from Afghanistan to Iraq. It was unnecessary and ill planned. When were we ever in danger of becoming slaves to Saddam?

[thargeagsaf]

All of the left is now cutting and running. "We never should have invaded", "Bush lied", etc, etc. I can post the quotes supporting the war again if you wish.

I'll ask the same question again, what would YOU do from here?

Sometimes you just have to go in and kick ass.

[egexgfczc]

Just to remind you of who Bush may have been listening to...

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

[GustavM]

All of the left is now cutting and running. "We never should have invaded", "Bush lied", etc, etc. I can post the quotes supporting the war again if you wish.

I'll ask the same question again, what would YOU do from here?

Sometimes you just have to go in and kick ass.

Look at my postings all you want (can't remember if I was a member then) but I definitely thought we'd cruise into Baghdad and then have a nightmare getting out. I was against this from day ONE.

And I've had my share of fights. I bounced in Irish pubs in Boston for seven years. Kicking ass is dumb and it only creates more problems ...as we're starting to see.

What to do now though ...tough one ...I know there are a lot of arguments against it, but I'd split the friggin' place up into more than the three usual suspects ... with perhaps a loose confederation...

As Caesar did ...divide and conquer ...give each new area a big brother from the developed Western World ... make the oil-rich areas common ground that we'd control until we were convinced that the lose confederation would not be dominated by one party.

Just a shot in the dark ... we need to be creative ...figure out something that doesn't smack of colonialism, oil greed, or the crusades and we need help from the rest of the developed world.

[animilius]

I don't understand you Democrats on this. Please, educate me. First you must admit that if Bush lied about Iraq, so did Kerry, Ted "hiccup" Kennedy, Clinton, Albright, and the rest of the Democrats. If they didn't, then neither did Bush, and we all just got the intelligence wrong. Not to mention the Russians, the British and the rest of the countries whose intelligence also failed them. Hence saying Bush lied, is nothing more than an attempt to smear for political gain.

Second, Democrats say we made such a horrible mistake and we are seen like idiots to the rest of the world. Yet, here are some facts. We now know that France and Germany were in bed with Iraq. The only two countries opposed to invasion. We also found that Kofi Annan's son and possibly Kofi was involved in the oil for food scandal. Libya gave up its WMDs. Egypt is having semi-free elections for the first time in recent times. Iraq and Afghanistan no longer have anti-American governments. Spain pulled out and continued to have terrorist attacks. France was opposed the war and are having terrorist attacks. Iraq is having free elections. Iraq now has a constitution. Iraqis are experiencing freedom for the first time in their lives. We haven't had an attack like 9-11 on our homeland since 9-11. We are fighting the war in the middle east where it belongs, not in the US. The Taliban is toast. Al Qaeda is weakening...

I could go on for days, but hopefully you get the picture. So for a so called "dumb" president, he sure is pretty lucky.

If Kerry was elected President, he would have pulled out. What would have been the outcome? My guess is most of the positives above would not have happened. And Sadam would have probably been freed with empty apologies.

I'm not saying the war has gone smoothly. I'm aware of our errors, but what war is perfect and without errors? What country is perfect?

Now imagine what as a nation we would have accomplished if the Democrats, weren't playing a political game with the security of the United States and the Middle East. Imagine if they would admit that they too were mislead by the worlds intelligence in believing that Sadam had WMDs. The only one at fault for this was Sadam who did not cooperate with UN investigators. Imagine if the Democrats instead of trying to derail the president for political gain in 2006 and 2008 would instead have the decency to admit our errors as a united nation and attempt to correct the wrongs the right way by not abandoning Iraq to Al Qaeda, and not adding fuel to their fire.

If Bush didn't have so much internal and external opposition and criticism this war would have been further along and would have caused less American and foreign lives.

[BoattyGonm]

You know I here this type of thing and I wonder who is kidding who. This is simply one more way of saying you either must support the war wholeheartedly or you are not a real AMerican. The only difference is this poster has tried to camoflage that kind of rhetoric slightly. He even goes so far as to say if we all just got on board there would not have been the over 2,000 American lives lost and god knows how many Iraqis. We don't know how many because to avoid any comparisons with Vietnam we aren't counting them, at least not publically.

You know what the difference between the Dems and even some Republicans who initially supported the war and now questions it and you is? THey are thinking. They see what is going on and realize their initial mistakes. You don't. Were are not safer. Has the US been hit again? No but how long did it take between the first WTC bombing and 911. In the meantime the Spanish have been hit, the English have been hit, the Australians have been hit in Bali, and the Jordanians have been hit, but the mere fact that the terrorists we suposedly went to war with in Afghanistan haven't been able to hit the US is all you need to proclaim some sort of victory. No my friend it isn't those of us who question that are unamaerican, it is you who have seemed proclaim a love for the constitution, but clearly do not like the freedoms conveyed by that document. It is you who have forgotten, or never learned, the political lessons of Vietnam. It is you who have forgotten or never learned the lesson of a government run amuck spying on its own people like the FBI did in the 60's and 70's, and is doing again all in the name of security. For the most part it is you who have read history, had it taught to you, but not learned a damned thing from it, or think you are somehow smarter this time and wont fall back into the same traps.

There is a saying. People who have not learned from history are doomed to repeat it, and you who swallow everything the admimnistration tells you hook line and sinker are living proof of the validity of this saying.

[imnaone]

Gort, that was a pretty bad attempt at spinning everything I said. You’re even putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. This is the typical. Why don't you argue on the points I made instead of saying that I said things I didn't say.

[durootrium]

Ok then tell me what words I put in your mouth.

[Pvfcadbh]

As Caesar did ...divide and conquer ...give each new area a big brother from the developed Western World ... make the oil-rich areas common ground that we'd control until we were convinced that the lose confederation would not be dominated by one party.

Just a shot in the dark ... we need to be creative ...figure out something that doesn't smack of colonialism, oil greed, or the crusades and we need help from the rest of the developed world.

Your second paragraph completely contradicts your first. It certainly makes it hard to respond.

[truttyMab]

Pitiful. Reconsideration of your original position in light of new evidence is now called lying and flip-flopping. All hail the mighty Rove. Do like General Custer and stay the course.

[fkjghfg]

What's wrong with pointing out how much Democrats hate? If you don't like it, tell your party to clean up its act.

Personally, I kinda like it. The Dems scream incessantly that "Bush lied!", while conveniently forgetting that their own President was saying the same things during his term, and enacting resolutions for "Regime change in Iraq" long before Bush ever showed up. When you point out these facts, they then scream that you hate them... when in fact it's been the opposite all along: They have been hating you, and the Bush administration, etc. And they apparently hate getting caught at it, even more.

Sorry, gents. You have brought all this upon yourselves. And it will keep coming your way as long as you keep up the crazy talk and wishful thinking that substitutes for reality in your world. And pretending that it's the rest of the world that hates you, rather than the other way around, is just more of the same.

But as I said, I don't mind it at all, personally. I hope you keep up the good work. The more wild accusations you throw, and smears and slime you try to spread, the more people will recognize you for what you plainly are. And the more elections you will continue to lose. And it's not because somebody "hates" you. They just don't want what you're selling. (Who would?)

Keep up the good work, lefties!

.

Well put.

[betraaaus]

didn't something like this come up in the presidential debates? Kerry did vote to give the pres authority to go to war, but then said he didn't expect the pres to go to war....without uh going though every last option before going to war? -eh yeah read the whole article and it said something like this. Bottom line Bush took us to war....you can't go blaming everyone except bush for things not going peachy.

But yeah this board is getting pretty lame with all the hate...not much discussion anymore...lots of name caling and talking smack. I get along with conservatives fine in real life, so I'm sure the aholes I can't stand on here are probably cool guys/girls.

We are.

But now you know why your Mom and/or Dad (or SOMEONE) told you that talking politics was always a bad idea

[lE3l6Lgn]

Yea I actually thought this kind of thing was now against the rules.

The forum rules state that cut and pasting entire articles will not be tolerated. Cutting and pasting part of an article while offering commentary about that article is perfectly withing the forum rules, whether or not people agree with the article's content.

I guess it depends on who you are as to whether the rules are to be enforced or not. Yes, it must be the bias that you allege. All moderators are, after all, partisan republicans.

After all what else can we surmise from some mods quick action against other cut and pasters and yet no action against this guy who sems to be making a career of it. That's a good question, but I'll answer it with another question. What should we surmise when someone issues groundless complaints rather than making an earnest effort to see the action corrected, or determine whether or not a violation has even occurred?

I have nothing against you or anyone else in this thread, but don't project your dissatisfaction with the OP's content onto the moderators. Ignoring threads is well within your capability, and everyone's here. Unless, of course, you guys are making a case for subjective censorship...

[AlexanderPalamayr]

Are all moderators in fact partisan Republicans? I hadn't noticed but thanks for the heads up. Now shall we stop with the inane comments and focus?

You folks made a big deal of cut and paste and that is fine, but if you are going to have arule enforce it, otherwise its just so many words on paper, or in this case cyberspace. I have made the same complaint against some posters who are clearly not Republicans so it isn't a partisan thing. I asked a question and made a comment. Now as far as I know that is not yet against the rules. I did not point a finger at you personally or in fact at any particular mod, I instead asked a rhetorical question. I didn't PM to you or any other mod complaining nor did I taddle to a mod in any manner about this.

It seems to me that in this case you are getting a little defensive, which leads me to ask why do this job if you let such a little thing as someone questioning the rules and the way they are enforced get under your skin enough that you feel you must answer publically. Content had nothing to do with it, cut and paste did, and does. There are plenty of examples of it, on both sides of the political spectrum. You don't think you can enforce the rule? Fine then do away with it.