Rigley

Wow it sounds like some of us are crying, about the Left Media not being
in total control any more.

Fox news is the closest, not perfect, thing we have to real news.

Don't cry in your beer. You can always get dish and watch other country
news.

Choices are what scions are all about, so choose to watch or not.

djct_watt

By far, the wisest, most on topic, and astute post on this entire thread.

Biznox

Don't worry. I didn't see anything I would consider pwnage.

I don't think soldiers and military families are upset about being sent to war.

I think they are upset about being sent to war based upon blatant, deliberate lies and dying for a cause which no one can clearly define.

We WENT to war because of WMD. Congress approved it based on WMD. Then we get there and OOPS. No WMD. Uh... OK.. ah... now it's a war of "Iraqi freedom". Oh, OK.

If Iraqi freedom was such a good cause, then tell me, why didn't we go to war based on that in the first place?

If we are such a wonderful country that wants to spread democracy and free people, then why do we do NOTHING for Africa and the rest of the multitude of other people in the world living under dictatorships????

I don't like super-liberals either, but anything. ANYTHING is better than a neo-conservative who thinks America can do no wrong and is willing to smear good mens repuations, lie to congress and the American people and behave in a shockingly unethical manner day-in and day-out like it's business as usual.

In the history of this country we have NEVER had men as evil as these at the helm.

It absolutely AMAZES me that conservatives are willing to completely overlook the blatant LIES that got us into this war and just accept anything the Bush administration does and says no matter how crooked and evil.

As far as befriending the Saudi ROYALS. Maybe you guys forgot, but they are a corrupt, wealthy and evil group RESENTED by their own people and THAT IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST REASONS AL QAEDA CITES FOR DECLARING WAR ON THE US IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Oh, thats right. I forgot. Republicans aren't interested in actually trying to understand the enemy. They'd rather tell their idiot constituency that the terrorists "hate us for our freedom" instead of discussing the real reasons because that might challenge people to think (god forbid) the moment people start to think, Republicans lose votes.

Stupid people bother YOU?

djct_watt

Don't forget that Congress gets to actually see the evidence. . . it's not like they were blindly following Bush either. What, do you think everyone somehow thought Bush was a super intelligent honest Saint, prior to Iraq? No. The same evidence existed now as did then. The fact remains that Congress failed to stop the war from happening (based on WMD's anyway). To think otherwise is to really kid yourself. It's not particularly easy to pass a lie to Congress, considering the dozens of committees and subcommittees that work as unofficial fact checkers.

War is seldom waged for one reason. We didn't enter WWII to save the Jews. . . we entered because of Pearl Harbour, thus bringing us into the European Theater as well (meaning war with Germany).

That is an excellent point. Why? Because nobody in America cares. That's the honest answer. We could cure all AIDS in Africa and nobody would even shed a tear. We were hit by terrorists on 9-11, thus why we care about Terrorism. Honest, but true.

I'm sure that super-liberals can be just as destructive. I'm not sold on this logic. If we had the green hippie way, all cars would be erradicated, all corporations would be shut down, and marijuana would be the largest consumed recreational drug in the country. Under their rule, we would have a new generation of Tobacco company. . . but it would be marijuana. And I'm sure they'd add lots of additives, chemicals, and kill many people, not unlike the Tobacco companies. Our corporations (often times characterized as villains) are the primary source of revenue for world wide charity organizations. What little food that exists in Africa exists because of corporate America. . . what little human aid that exists comes from America. We are, by far, the largest contributor of humanitarian aid and charity in the entire world. And government structure and the efficient revenues generated by corporations, this would not exist. And this something fundamentally provided by the right wing. However, extremists aren't good either. . . on either side.

You've obviously never studied history. I don't know where to begin. . . from the resistance to desegregation to rights suppresion. . . to HOOVER. You REALLY disqualify yourself here with this statement. Bush has caused some int'l damage, but all in all, he hasn't caused too much damage domesticly. To say that we've "NEVER" had men as "evil" . . . and in capital letters. . .

The majority of Republicans disapprove of Bush's performance. I don't know where you got this from. Who are these conservatives? Did you get this idea from talking to maybe 15-20 people that you know? That doesn't constitute much. By the way, why are you so angry? Anger doesn't do a lick of good. Arguing with facts is far more effective than just venting non-sensical opinions based on nothing.

We've been friends with the Saudi's for a long time. . . this dates back to the Clinton days. And did you know that most people have been saying the same thing about America as you just said for the Saudi's? Except they've been saying it about us for almost 50 years. We're corrupt? Check. . . have always been. Wealthy? Do you see any politicians on welfare? No. Do we always push our own agenda? Yes. . . always have. Al Qaeda has plotted against us since the Clinton days. . . so I don't think that it has any relevancy to our current President's mistakes, nor on our friendship with the Saudi's. . . do you think we give a damn about China either? Political friends are political friends. . . it doesn't mean that they are peachy keen.

Again, I've already addressed this. This is about as useful and as factual as a "your Mom is so fat" comment.

No. . . but you're starting to. . . I'm not opposed to exposing the mistakes of the Bush administration. . . in fact I encourage it. But you really do give HARD WORKING, and factually argumentative Democrats and liberals a bad name. It wouldn't hurt to read up on some basic basic history, especially on the events of the 80's and 90's. There are good arguments (for your side of the argument) to be made. But you havn't really cited many of them. Most of what you bring up is opinionated here-say.

Biznox

It sounds like perhaps we agree on more than I would have suspected.

I have to agree I could have made a much more compelling argument if I wanted to make the effort, but don't confuse that with me being ignorant of history. I might have cited the fact that we created a fertile environment for Islamic extremism and terrorism by abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out in the 1980s. I might have mentioned the fact that we helped arm and strengthen Iraq all throughout the 80's and treated Saddam like a buddy when he was at war with Iran (I'm reminded of the famous photo of Don Rumsfeld heartily shaking Saddam's hand)

I made the mistake of assuming that you were defending the Bush administration and it's policies without reserve and I reacted emotionally, for that I apologize. I will stand by the sentiments behind most of what I wrote though. The idea that most Republicans don't approve of Bush is news to me. I do know that some Republicans have finally pulled their heads out of the sand and are just beginning to realize Bush is a liar with a meglomaniac agenda. It's definitely a case of too little too late.

Perhaps Bush and his administration aren't the most evil men America has ever seen, but they are certainly toward the top of the list.

I'll say this. History will not be kind to this administration as more and more of the truth is revealed, regardless of how this war turns out.

I find it interesting that you use 9/11 and terrorism as a reason why we went to war in Iraq while choosing not to "liberate" any of the other people in the world suffering under dictatorships and military rule.

You sound way too intelligent to beleive Iraq had any relevance in the war on terror, so I have to assume you meant to acknowledge it was used as a reason, but you don't necessarily buy into it.

I wonder how the war on terror would be doing if we had focused on Afghanistan and northern Pakistan instead of pulling out special forces and assinging local goat herders to hunt for Osama bin Laden.

djct_watt

Good points, and accurate.

But one clarification, I don't have any reason for going to war with Iraq, since I never asked to go to war. I was stating the country's reason for going to war. In all seriousness, "liberation" was nothing but fodder to add to the argument for war. The main reason that those in charge chose to go war was to fight terrorism, which is a popular move in the realm of politics. Fighting terrorism (effectively, or the promise of effictive fighting) wins votes. I'm not so sure about now, but definitely in the past few years. Terrorism was Congress' primary concern. . . liberation was but a side effect. Like you said before, if liberation were important, there would be other countries higher up on the priority list. But that's just the thing, and it's sad. The majority of Americans don't really care about Iraqi freedom. We just don't want anymore terrorist attacks. But again, I'm referring to the public. . . and not individuals.

And of course, this doesn't account for the possibility and likelihood of personal agendas for going to war with Iraq. There are strong arguments that Bush had personal reasons. . . which I can't validate or invalidate. One thing is for sure, despite the reasons, we made one helluva a big intelligence error, deliberate or not.