enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
Page 2 of 3 (43 items)   < Previous 1 2 3 Next >
Huh?
by reJoinder

Bush didn't start the war in Iraq?

Please provide evidence that your claim is factual.

Re: Huh?
by Tarkol
reJoinder:

Bush didn't start the war in Iraq?

Please provide evidence that your claim is factual.

The argument could be made that it started in Aug 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Re: There's your "Alice Rebutall'
by TomFitz

When confronted with actual facts that AliceMarie know that she can't refute, she just yells "Controlled Message".

That's her strategy. She sticks her fingers in her ears, closes her eyes and shouts "controlled message" at anyone who doesn't endorse what she heard on Rush.

It could be
by reJoinder

..but only if you're of the Neo-Con persuasion and believe that Bush's invasion was somehow 'justified' by Saddam's unwillingness to jump through one or another imaginary hoop.

I'm not one of those people, sorry.

Which is what's so funny
by reJoinder

....because NO one loves "controlled messages" more than Righties, Alice herself being a noteworthy example.

Re: It could be
by Tarkol
reJoinder:

..but only if you're of the Neo-Con persuasion and believe that Bush's invasion was somehow 'justified' by Saddam's unwillingness to jump through one or another imaginary hoop.

I'm not one of those people, sorry.

I didn't say it justified anything. The invasion wasn't justified, in my view. You could say GWB escalated the conflict without good cause and I would agree but he didn't start it.

Re: Huh?
by Reptilicus
reJoinder:

Bush didn't start the war in Iraq?

Please provide evidence that your claim is factual.

alice TRULY believes that "Democrats started the war in Iraq...but Bush won it!"

Yes....she's that crazy.

Re: It could be
by reJoinder

I didn't claim that you DID say it was justified. The term 'you're' was used generally, not of you particularly.

I'm just saying that while you could TECHNICALLY claim it was a continuing conflict in a legalistic sense, there was no significant "conflict" going on when Bush decided to invade. To the average person, it was an action completely seperate from the Gulf War.

She probably does
by reJoinder

...as nutty as that sounds.

Does she think that G.H.W. Bush or his son was a Democrat? Or both? :)

Re: It could be
by Tarkol
reJoinder:

I didn't claim that you DID say it was justified. The term 'you're' was used generally, not of you particularly.

I'm just saying that while you could TECHNICALLY claim it was a continuing conflict in a legalistic sense, there was no significant "conflict" going on when Bush decided to invade. To the average person, it was an action completely seperate from the Gulf War.

To the average person perhaps but you seem more informed than most. You know that enforcement of the "no fly" zones never ended. There was occasional shooting throughout, Clinton ordered bombings twice. So the conflict was ongoing.

All I was getting at is that GWB didn't start that particular fire, he did pour gasoline on it though.

Perhaps we could at least agree
by reJoinder
...that Bush launched the war? :)
Re: There's your "Alice Rebutall'
by alicemarie
TomFitz:

When confronted with actual facts that AliceMarie know that she can't refute, she just yells "Controlled Message".

That's her strategy. She sticks her fingers in her ears, closes her eyes and shouts "controlled message" at anyone who doesn't endorse what she heard on Rush.

==============================­===============

Yes! Because that is what it is. All your Pro-Government Health Care talking points are controlled messages sent out by the Democrat Liberals to their followers so they can feel good about getting screwed!

Re: Perhaps we could at least agree
by Tarkol

reJoinder:
...that Bush launched the war? :)

Yes we do agree that the invasion and occupation are all Bush. I doubt Alice will concur though.

What the Dems said about Iraq and Saddam...
by alicemarie

THE DEMOCRATS NOW:

PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES.

THE DEMOCRATS THEN:

"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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 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.

"We 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, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and 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.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the 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 Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), 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.

"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.

<link>

'Now" being, what, six years ago?
by reJoinder

Never let it be said that you live in the present, Alice. Of course Bush invaded. You haven't refuted a single claim I've made.

Just playing the old 'But, but, they did it TOO!' game your kind always plays. Dumb.

Page 2 of 3 (43 items)   < Previous 1 2 3 Next >
View as RSS news feed in XML