i<3drifting wrote:vimy it doesn't matter when the last time iraq had used wmd's they still had them in the form of sarin gas missiles, why you won't believe they were found i will never know. you said yourself the un said that iraq had destroyed 95%, well what about the other 5%. and for the last time, al-qaeda WAS in iraq, the camps existed and were real, yet you deny this also. and stop talking about bushie propaganda, cuz you are spreading more false leftist propaganda than i have ever seen. you admit he was funding terrorists agains israel, so why isn't that enough. this is the war on terror, not the war on terrorism against america. we are fighting against terrorism against us and our allies, israel being one of those. so saddam funding anti-israeli terroists is a good enough reason for me as this makes saddam a terrorlst not counting the acts of terrorism he commited on the kurds
i<3drifting wrote:i am a teen (16) and I don't care if there is a draft. america needs as many soldiers as possible, but i am going to join anway because I love america i love my life here and i need to make certain that the generations after me can enjoy the same freedoms and safety that I have
i<3drifting wrote:link proving al-qaeda in iraq before liberationhttp://frontpagemag.com/Articl...13856
wmd's in iraq linkhttp://frontpagemag.com/Articl...13835
Bubba1 wrote: Does getting drafted alter your view of Bush's decision wage a war against Iraq?
s13sr20chris wrote:1)moral conviction2)honesty3)consistant4)policy
MaineExport wrote:Originally posted by VimyJ "]Maine, what does anything you wrote have to do with the Iraq fiasco? Iraq was never a threat to US security or freedoms.
The thread title is Bush vs. Kerry... just because you can only focus on Iraq doesn't mean the rest of us have to. I am just responding to comments other members have made...
There are all kinds of things we could say about Iraq, but we've all seen how pointless that becomes.
Well, I could point out how you argue two opposing views of Saddam. In one of your posts he is "smarter" than we give him credit for. You tout him as some genius leader.... YET, you insist that he'd be stupid enough to leave behind piles of evidence regarding his ties to terrorists and piles of WMD's if they truly existed. But, I'd rather stay away from that because I know how fired up you get when someone points out your hypocrisy.
If you feel trapped in Iraq, use your vote... that's what it's there for. Oh yeah... your only other choice voted FOR the invasion as well. Oh, but I'm sure you have a justification for that worked up as well. Surely the blame for Kerry's vote lies in the hands of the evil right wing conspiracy that tricked him into voting. Oh... another convenient situation in which you argue two sides of the same coin. Is Bush the bumbling idiot you have convinced yourself he is... or was he smart enough to trick people like Kerry into voting for the invasion? If so, what does that make Kerry? Maybe Bush is an idiot and Kerry is just a bigger idiot..... hrmmmm.
Maine, have you forgotten that bush lied to congress? No WMD and no ties to AQ. Look up "hypocrisy".
Once again, I refer you to the "Presidential Letter".
Jesda wrote:God. I hate this thread. I keep saying I'll stop but I never do. But I cant let half-truths stand.
Hillary Clinton said we needed to invade Iraq. Hillary Clinton said there were ties to terrorists. HR Clinton and George Bush and John Kerry based this on the same 'intelligence' data. Hillary Clinton even wants a slower handover of power!
"Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis."-----------"This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction. "-----------"And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them."-----------http://clinton.senate.gov/spee....html
My point? Everyone said so. So please stop trying to say "Bush lied" when in fact, EVERYONE was making a case for this through the 90s. We all had the SAME intelligence data. You can bend your perceptions, Mike, but reality wont budge.
I respectfully believe that what you have been saying is misleading and intellectually dishonest. You're so busy hating Bush and fixated so strongly on your own agenda, that you cant see left from right. Zoom out for a second and go back to 1990.
If you want to say "Bush was wrong" then say so. But saying "Bush lied" is putting your on spin on reality. If Bush lied, then so did congress, the CIA, the GOP, the DNC, and the previous administration. If then, they ALL lied, then what we have is a vast federal conspiracy, and its time to adjust our tinfoil hats.
Bush isnt some kind of super-savior as right wingers sometimes romanticize him to be. He has many glaring flaws and takes many positions on issues that I find to be flat out indefensible. But hes not the superdemon you make him out to be either. I give him credit for how he's handling the war, a single issue that might be important enough to win my vote, or might not. We'll see in November.
OKAY! Now I'm done with this thread!
-Jesda