The 'war on terror' is a front for invading the Middle East, and the Iraq/9-11 link is a game of 'Six Degrees of Saddam'...taking this idea one step further, G.H.W. Bush is responsible for 9-11.
Uh huh...one more time where he does something stupid, and pretends he actually thought about it first. Oh, he thought long and hard about something...how many votes he would lose if he didn't pander to his "moron" constituency.
Right, and they turn it around and say that anyone who is smart is bad, as though a high IQ and real experience make you less capable to run things.
I'm sorry to say, but you display your lack of understanding
Amongst many other ties, Iraq had Al-Qaeda training camps
LMAO! And after that, Bush will part the waters, and make the sun stand still?? The POINT of terrorism is that you can't attack it like you would a military target. Someone can throw a Molotov cocktail, turn the corner and they are a law-abiding citizen again. You cannot beat terorism with military tactics.
What WMDs?!? The ones we sold them, or the ones Bush pretended they had? How can non-existant weapons be a threat? America apparently is just as guilty, BTW...we had terrorists training on U.S. soil, we have WMDs, and we have supported terrorism in the past. Shall we attack ourselves, or ask the U.N. to enact sanctions against us?
Thank you for your "interpretation" of my messages.
hmm... I guess some people won't agree to any action until
Just as soon as there is a threat, we should take it seriously. In the absense of one, we shouldn't act for the sake of acting.
I have to admit I am, repeatedly, having considrable difficulty
This is why I am far less active in these discussions than I used to be. Because I KNOW Zero has the facts, his positions and what he says about them are just flat out baffling.
Oh well, I feel exactly the same way about you and Russ...ignorant(from my perspective) beyond belief about certain things, and I KNOW neither of you are stupid...long live the 1st Amendment, I guess...
I'd like to see someone argue these points too, instead of hiding behind the 'you just don't know anything' posts. Teach us!
I'd have to ask where you are getting your 'facts'. I know you don't go in for blustery right-wing whackos like Rush Limbaugh, so what sources are you using?
I do think it is a world-view issue, as the link I posted illustrates. Bush and Co. don't feel the need for facts, because they KNOW everything, even when all the evidence refutes them. This administrations actions from a purely scientific standpoint are proof-positive that when there is a difference between reality and their agenda, they ignore reality.
The problem is, I guess, that truth takes too long to catch up to the lies. I don't blame people for believing Bush: they are scared about terrorism, used to trusting their leaders, and the media has almost completely dropped the ball on its coverage of this administration.
Here's a better idea...do your own research, ok? You managed to sign up to PF, and I've seen you post links, so I think you might be able to handle Google. You need to be willing to invest some effort in your own knowledge. Otherwise, should you fall along the wayside with all the rest of the people who don't bother to inform themselves?(In other words, kat, don't be rude or condesending, it is bad manners.)Originally posted by kat
Lol, do you guys have your nose tilted towards the ceiling and are you sipping tea with your little pinky finger slightly extended when you put these ideas forth? Thanks for the early morning grin
Just to make me feel all yummy inside, can you substantiate these particular statements with direct quotes and links to the government site that keeps the entire transcript, with exact wording for me? Oh, and a list of the exact types of "WMD" you're referencing, with references to reliable sites?
Otherwise, in my opiinion, your claims just fall down along the wayside with the rest of the useless rhetoric that goes for "fact" on this particular forum.
Thanks a bunch
I'll certainly give you that. Different things are important to us. However, I've always taken the position that political science is as its name implies a science and if studied objectively can be figured out.
A sampling of the mainstream media for the most part. No, I do not watch Fox News.
My line of reasoning has never been quite the same as Bush's anyway though.
Touche' Zero.
Let's take an example...Did Bush say that an attack on America by Iraq was imminent? Yes, or no, Russ?
How about this: When you make a claim, particularly an accusation of lying, cheating, stealing etc., have the intellectual honesty to support it with direct quotes when asked to. If you haven't seen the direct quotes, from the source, then it's probably prudent not to make the claim until you have, as the media seems to be an unreliable source. I don't feel I need to do research to support your claim, or anyone elses. I do research to support MY claims, so..when I make a claim, you can usually be pretty sure that I can give you a direct source quote or reference.
See, that is the sort of 'lazy' reporting that goes on around Bush...he uses the word "imminent" once, and in the way you describe. However, the definition of the word 'imminent' is :About to occur; impending. Bush certainly used language to suggest that Iraq could actually hurt America in the near future, including in your own link. He(well, his speech writers) is also a master of avoiding making direct claims that a Google search can bring up to bite him in the butt.