Mon Jan 29, 2007 5:11 pm
bdk wrote:Well, that is timely information after the fact since the invasion was in March of 2003... Maybe he has some insight into last month's football scores as well?
After the fact or not...the end result is that Saddam had no WMD's which was the major justification for going to war in the 1st place. Even after all this...some of the right-wing wackos out there still can't accept the fact that this administration "cherry picked" the intel to justify their case for invading.
Have you ever noticed the way the mission in Iraq has changed as time goes by? First it was WMD's (didn't find any)...then it was to remove the evil tyrant Saddam (captured him)...then the mission turned to spreading democracy to the Iraqi people (yup...they voted but people are still dying)...and now the latest justification is to fight the insurgents (which are mostly Iraqi's fighting Iraqi's and no mention of civil war). We're past due for the next change in the mission...does anybody out there have some ideas? Knowing good ol bumbling Bush he'll start using the word "crusade" again to describe the mission in Iraq. This will give the bad guys more rhetoric to rally around which will equal more dead American servicemembers.
Mon Jan 29, 2007 5:38 pm
Here's my idea for the mission change:
"We're in Iraq to capture the flag before the others capture ours. Then we race towards our base with it to win the match."
"We're in Iraq to capture the flag before the others capture ours. Then we race towards our base with it to win the match."
Colin
Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:17 pm
I remember when Colin Powell was giving that UN speech. He certainly looked uncomfortable, as if he did not feel right about what he was saying. I think Powell was selected for that position, not because of his diplomatic experience, but because he had creditability in the public eyes that the Bush adminitration needed. Bush and Cheney sent Powell out there like a used car salesman to try to close the deal before anyone looked under the hood. I recall laterr reading something like this about Powell's doubts.
Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:42 pm
jpeters wrote:After the fact or not...the end result is that Saddam had no WMD's which was the major justification for going to war in the 1st place. Even after all this...some of the right-wing wackos out there still can't accept the fact that this administration "cherry picked" the intel to justify their case for invading.
Some "right-wingers" (myself for one, and several others that I know) were opposed to the Iraq invasion on Constitutional, Just War, and other grounds. In fact some of the more extreme right wingers consider those who led the buildup to the "war" (except I don't remember war being declared by Congress) as Neo-cons... and not true conservatives or whatever you want to call them. I guess I'm just not sure that true "right-wingers" should being classified as wackos. Or maybe I'm not such a "right-winger" as I've been led to believe.
Ryan
Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:48 pm
it's all a cluster f*ck just like vietnam
Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:53 pm
by the way...... i used to back the iraq cause... now forget it. i'd rather put my betting money in rip off ohio old coin investments. any buckeye schmuckeye living in ohio will know what i'm talking about. 
Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:38 am
Were not going to win the war unless we ban the press from the war zone and take a very hard hand to those people.
Last edited by Broken-Wrench on Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:21 am
RyanShort1 wrote:jpeters wrote:After the fact or not...the end result is that Saddam had no WMD's which was the major justification for going to war in the 1st place. Even after all this...some of the right-wing wackos out there still can't accept the fact that this administration "cherry picked" the intel to justify their case for invading.
Some "right-wingers" (myself for one, and several others that I know) were opposed to the Iraq invasion on Constitutional, Just War, and other grounds. In fact some of the more extreme right wingers consider those who led the buildup to the "war" (except I don't remember war being declared by Congress) as Neo-cons... and not true conservatives or whatever you want to call them. I guess I'm just not sure that true "right-wingers" should being classified as wackos. Or maybe I'm not such a "right-winger" as I've been led to believe.
Ryan
Ryan,
The term "right-wing whackos" was directed at the real nuts out there like Rush, O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Hannity, Dobson, and other wind bags that worship this administration and everything it does. For the record...I also dislike the ultra "left-wing whackos" as well. It makes me wonder what ever happened to moderate politicians? Maybe they're extinct!
Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:24 am
RyanShort1 wrote:jpeters wrote:After the fact or not...the end result is that Saddam had no WMD's which was the major justification for going to war in the 1st place. Even after all this...some of the right-wing wackos out there still can't accept the fact that this administration "cherry picked" the intel to justify their case for invading.
Some "right-wingers" (myself for one, and several others that I know) were opposed to the Iraq invasion on Constitutional, Just War, and other grounds. In fact some of the more extreme right wingers consider those who led the buildup to the "war" (except I don't remember war being declared by Congress) as Neo-cons... and not true conservatives or whatever you want to call them. I guess I'm just not sure that true "right-wingers" should being classified as wackos. Or maybe I'm not such a "right-winger" as I've been led to believe.
Ryan
Ryan,
The term "right-wing whackos" was directed at the real nuts out there like Rush, O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Hannity, Dobson, and other wind bags that worship this administration and everything it does. For the record...I also dislike the ultra "left-wing whackos" as well. It makes me wonder what ever happened to moderate politicians? Maybe they're extinct!