GW's last days comic strip

[dirtyNXerchickie]

If anything, you are proving that you are set in yours by your unwillingness to back up your statements. Perhaps 240 General is more your speed.

Gee, forgive me for being analytical on a political forum.

analytical?! ANALYTICAL!!?? let me help you with that word. analytical means you are taking every measurement of every little part of your subject, be it physical or not. then you have to take EVERY single part you just studied and assemble it in a logical form. then, after you have observed everything, maybe you will see the big picture and will be able to form a decent conclusion.

you were simply throwing around opinions. that is not being analytical. you do that in the sciences and you get to ride the fail train.

[ishkabibble]

analytical?! ANALYTICAL!!?? let me help you with that word. analytical means you are taking every measurement of every little part of your subject, be it physical or not.

Wow, thanks for your help. Let's look at what Wheelman said which made me respond in that way.

I'm not going to go through and cite EVERY SINGLE good thing Bush has done.

Hmm.

you do that in the sciences and you get to ride the fail train.

Let me know if you want help with the word "pedant". This isn't a science forum. Go back to the lab.

[ishkabibble]

Context: The same leader that ordered these attacks was still in power.

And this made him an immediate threat how?

When should we have gone in then?

After the Afghanistan situation was cleaned up, and when there was a real threat. All of the effort and money used up over there could have been put toward better things.

Why is it flimsy evidence? Because you say so? Until you offer proof to dispute the validity of the evidence this is another conspiracy theory.

It was flimsy evidence because there were no WMDs in Iraq and Iraq had noting to do with 9/11.

Also, did you watch "Bush's War", (the link I gave you and Matt earlier)? I bet you didn't. It goes over how Wolfowitz created the Office of Special Plans and staffed it with yes men in order to filter intel.

By your own words, there was no war. I don't know what these two wars you speak of are. I conceded this argument to you and now you are taking up my old side?

I did not say there was no war, I said there was no formal Declaration of War. Had you not bold and capitalized your incorrect belief about Congress declaring war, I probably wouldn't have even bothered to correct you.

Even Bush uses the term "war" to describe what's going on.

I think you have two completely different definitions of war.

Um, no. I define the conflicts as "war", but am informed enough to know that Congress did not declare war. You, with all of your superior knowledge and reasoning abilities, did not, and even argued against me before finally being spoon fed the information.

[OriginalWheelman]

[480sx]

Why is it flimsy evidence? Because you say so? Until you offer proof to dispute the validity of the evidence this is another conspiracy theory.

He offered you definitive evidence from a legitimate source. Until you discredit that source, you have nothing.

That does not mean that the time to strike was wrong. Letting the opponent build up a better defense is always wrong.

From a military strategist POV ONLY. Like i posted earlier, this 'war' should have been handled as it truly was. Something way more than a military strategists war, however this was not done.

There was no eminent threat from Iraq, there was no real need for a rush to get in there. Saddam didnt really even fully believe that we would attack, he thought we were all talk. He was preoccupied with Iran and his own delusions.

[skydragoness]

2 pages of arguing because of some political cartoons? Really?

Downright bashing of one's national leader just shows the amount of respect that we get from the international community - 0.

I'm ashamed that these comics even exist - democratic, republican, liberitarian, anyone - an outright mockery of our elected officials is not acceptable in any way, shape or form.

Political cartoons have been around since the beginning of this country, hell, if you want to get technical they have early beginnings in Europe. They are part of our right to free speech.If you don't like them then don't read them.

[480sx]

2 pages of arguing because of some political cartoons? Really?

Really, its 3 pages..

Idk, threads evolve pretty quick in this section so its not so much a thread about the comic strip anymore as it is about GWB and his administration. Our 'final thoughts' now that the end of GWB's presidency is here.

[skydragoness]

Really, its 3 pages..

Idk, threads evolve pretty quick in this section so its not so much a thread about the comic strip anymore as it is about GWB and his administration. Our 'final thoughts' now that the end of GWB's presidency is here.

I didn't count the first since that was the start of the thread.I used to participate in political discussions back in the day on this forum but a lot of the smart people who made it fun and interesting are no longer here.

[OriginalWheelman]

He offered you definitive evidence from a legitimate source. Until you discredit that source, you have nothing.

If you're talking about that Frontline film I saw nothing that proves his point. They painted part of a picture, and showed it from one angle. The case that film was based on more speculation than the invasion of Iraq.

[ishkabibble]

Where is it factually incorrect? Where is the speculation?

[OriginalWheelman]

Where is it factually incorrect? Where is the speculation?

I'm supposed to **** my pants because the government was looking into one of our primary adversaries the day after 9/11? As has been shown here, and should be common knowledge, our bad blood with Iraq goes much, much farther back than 9/11. I would be more mad if they had NOT looked into Iraq. And then, because they were investigating Iraq for a connection from 9/11 on, I'm supposed to believe that it was an excuse to start the war. LEt me use the same set of evidence to paint a different picture...

We are in a long term conflict with the leaders of Iraq. 9/11 happens. We start big investigations into Iraq, trying to find out if they had anything to do with it. We find a bunch of stuff we don't like. Based on what we found after looking harder after 9/11, we deem Saddam a threat that must be removed. It's the straw that broke the camel's back.

[ishkabibble]

OSP was formed a year after 9/11.

Why was there a need for the Office of Special Plans? What was wrong with the CIA's intel? Where was the initial evidence that led them to believe Iraq had anything to do with current terrorlst attacks on the US?

The OSP had a foregone conclusion in its mind when it was looking at intel. Hence the filter/stovepipe/"bubble". They were going to find evidence to support their claim no matter what. It was their job.

[480sx]

Heres an idea. You keep throwing the burden of proof on us, like its our responsibility to spoon feed you with information. Then when Ish does so, you throw out the information like its meaningless.

So what about this. Why dont you give us the reasons we should have gone into Iraq at the time and in the manner in which we did. Give us the reasons you think that going into Iraq as we did was a good idea, and if possible, throw some citations our way. I would love to hear your case for war.

Before the war(wiki) over 60 percent of Americans feared that going into Iraq would create more terrorism. Now, a vast majority of Americans feel that going into Iraq the way we did was a bad move, and want out. Most acknowledge that some shady dealings were done to get us there in the first place, and are kinda pissed about the whole situation. Tell us why you are a minority.

[480sx]

I used to participate in political discussions back in the day on this forum but a lot of the smart people who made it fun and interesting are no longer here.

Owch!

Ah well, im sorry to hear that. Hope you find a reason to join us, its been pretty lively around here recently.

[audtatious]

So what about this. Why dont you give us the reasons we should have gone into Iraq at the time and in the manner in which we did. Give us the reasons you think that going into Iraq as we did was a good idea, and if possible, throw some citations our way. I would love to hear your case for war.

1. We need moar oil2. We are running out of sand for our beeches due to global warming hurricanes3. Lots and lots of people to convert to Christianity which will help in bible sales4. Our sunscreen manufacturers need more sales5. We are awfully short of camels in the US

[480sx]

1. We need moar oil

We always have Alaskan wild life reserves. Or Canada, i think we should annex them. Then, only the Canadians will ***** when we drill in their reserves. Problem solved.

2. We are running out of sand for our beeches due to global warming hurricanes

Shipping barges of sand over to fill our depleted beaches has proven to be really cost ineffective. However.. Mexico has a lot of sand....

3. Lots and lots of people to convert to Christianity which will help in bible sales

Not much difference between a Crusade and a Jihad, although the bible manufacturers will win big. A solution to the global economic crisis maybe?

4. Our sunscreen manufacturers need more sales

Most people in the middle east ditched the need for sunscreen long ago. Evolution and headgear.

5. We are awfully short of camels in the US

I think we have more than enough.. Who the fvk needs a camel!

[ishkabibble]

It's a conspiracy led by Middle America. They want the sand and global warming so their crappy, landlocked, low land value states suddenly become beachfront property. Since the rest of their industries dried up, bible printing is all they have left. The thought of camels excites them because they are looking for more variety in their farm animals a.k.a. girlfriends.

[audtatious]

It's a conspiracy led by Middle America. They want the sand and global warming so their crappy, landlocked, low land value states suddenly become beachfront property. Since the rest of their industries dried up, bible printing is all they have left.

OMG!!!! It's gonna be the Civil War all over again!!!!

The thought of camels excites them because they are looking for more variety in their farm animals a.k.a. girlfriends.

We are just making sure you have something to move up to when you tire of dogs. We just don't like you messing with horses as we notice after you have sex with them they just want to lie around and smoke a cig instead of pullin the plow like we need them to

[ishkabibble]

freaking ROFL

[OriginalWheelman]

You asked me to refute the evidence. I have no problem with the evidence, but the spin put on it.

You want me to make a case for the invasion. As I have said before I was against the invasion before it happened. The evidence was shotty, at best, we all knew it, no one cared. America wanted vengeance, the government gave it to them.

I'll list the reasons for the use of force for the 3rd time in this thread.

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors. * Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[2] * Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." * Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people". * Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. * Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq." * Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorlst organizations," including anti-United States terrorlst organizations. * The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them. * The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. * Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I..._1998

BTW, nice of you to read that article and post one stat w/o linking it. If you had we'd have all seen this.

In a January 2003 CBS poll 64% of U.S. nationals had approved of military action against Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
Modified by OriginalWheelman at 8:58 PM 2/4/2009

[ishkabibble]

Wait a minute.... all of that righties claim the public opinion is irrelevant, and now it is your soapbox? FAIL.

Let's see another interesting stat, from 2005: 47% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001. Hmmm, what caused these public perceptions? Certainly not right wing propaganda in order to gain public support. Certainly not!

Keep parroting those "reasons". You are just reinforcing the fact that your argument is weak.

[OriginalWheelman]

I'm done with this. I refuse to keep repeating myself. My point is simply this, until there is definitive proof that there was an orchestrated scam pulled ont he American people, I will not believe it. There is evidence to suggest it is possible, but there is no proof. If you could prove the case to me, I would join the people calling for a war crimes trial, but I believe in the greatest law of this land, Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Until it can be proven (burden of proof is ALWAYS on the accuser) I will not believe it.
Modified by OriginalWheelman at 9:13 PM 2/5/2009

[ishkabibble]

Bush accused Iraq of having WMDs and of operational ties to Al-Qaeda. There were none. So, I guess there is no proof one direction or the other, and wonder why you stick up for him so adamantly if proof is so important to you.

[audtatious]

There were WMD's found, just not the quantity expected. There are also some ties between Saddam's "generals", or whatever you call them, just not any direct 1:1 with Saddam. You could say that nothing went on with his underlings without his approval so he would have an indirect role with al quida.

It's all perception and how you want to see things. You want a smoking gun while some of us are OK with shell casings. What's done is done. We can move forward and do what is right or wallow in what some see as lies and failure.

[480sx]

I just hate the idea of letting this stuff go. A level of accountability needs to be established for those in Government. Full accountability to all those who violate the law. The judicial branch needs to have its clock cleaned for one. Then, we need a special group of people in that branch with top security clearances going back over EVERYTHING that was done, said, written ect. Find the missing links, ask the questions, put anyone on trial who has done wrong. Start at the bottom, work your way up.

A detective never lets a suspect out of the microscope until its clear that he has committed no crime. Why can we not have that same level of scrutiny applied to government operatives? To many people are just willing to 'let things go'. The biggest threat to a democracy is an apathetic populous. Good men who sit back and do nothing.

Is it to say that, the common man deserves one level of justice while those in power deserve a different, nerfed forum of justice?

Aud - What WMDs were found exactly? They found a lot of yellow cake, and some chemicals, but no WMDs. Might have been the stuff needed to make a form of a WMD, but none were ever found to my knowledge. Nothing anywhere close to what i would consider a 'WMD' could have been made with the stuff that was found in Iraq.

[OriginalWheelman]

I just hate the idea of letting this stuff go.

That may be your problem. How many people have been digging into this for how long and NONE of them have come up with anything. I'm willing to accept that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence but with how much scrutiny the media and everyone else have given it. The same media who can dig track a politician's daughters birth across several states with timestamps from years ago, found nothing, repeatedly.

[480sx]

The wrong people have been digging.. The medias coverage of the things that should raise red flags is non existent. Were outside looking in at this problem, those who are looking which is in reality very few people.

The media picks up those garbage stories because they are easy. This one is kind of.. barking up the wrong tree so to speak. The media coverage of certain intelligence leaks that have indicated or hinted at misconduct by high ranking officials in our government is NON EXISTENT. However, if you watch the BBC for one you catch a hell of a lot more things that should at least raise your eyebrow about the American government before and during the war.

In addition, plenty of people have come up with things. You just chose not to hear it because its not coming from network news. NPR has done multiple reports on this, but no one listens to NPR. Most stick with network news and thus, the problem continues on.

OW - Its a lot more than my problem. If this is really going on in OUR government, it effects you too. If left unchecked, your children and your grandchildren as well.
Modified by 480sx at 1:06 PM 2/6/2009

[intermilanrox]

[QUOTE=480sx]

The majority of the international community had no love for Bush. Maybe with a different leader that will change. Maybe if we have a respectable leader who makes sound decisions we might get a little respect.

I hope you aren't talking about Obama and his "sound decisions". Because I mean look who was been nominated for his cabinet, a.k.a Tom Daschle and his 128k tax problem and Timothy Geithner and his 34k in back taxes due to the IRS which he know oversees. That is ridiculous.

[OriginalWheelman]

I hope you aren't talking about Obama and his "sound decisions". Because I mean look who was been nominated for his cabinet, a.k.a Tom Daschle and his 128k tax problem and Timothy Geithner and his 34k in back taxes due to the IRS which he know oversees. That is ridiculous.

This is a good point. The whole world gets this news too. It adds validity to everyone's claims of a corrupt government exploiting people. And it takes away from the Democrats image they try to portray of being above the corruption in Washington.

[ishkabibble]

There were WMD's found, just not the quantity expected. There are also some ties between Saddam's "generals", or whatever you call them, just not any direct 1:1 with Saddam. You could say that nothing went on with his underlings without his approval so he would have an indirect role with al quida.

It's all perception and how you want to see things. You want a smoking gun while some of us are OK with shell casings. What's done is done. We can move forward and do what is right or wallow in what some see as lies and failure.

Like 480sx said, the facilitators need to be held accountable. Otherwise a precedent is set and it's just going to keep happening.

Of course, the right will whine to no end when a leftie does something rather than say "let bygones be bygones". In their world, bitching about Clinton is a daily occurrence, yet "Bush isn't President anymore, drop it".

There were no significant quantities of WMDs found. As admitted by the Bush admin, there were no operational ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. If you are OK with attacking based on flimsy evidence, you are OK with attacking pretty much any country in the world on a whim. Scary.

For people who are concerned with the government spending a few bucks on safety nets because they "are going to be rich someday", they sure are fine with throwing away trillions on mistakes. For people who are upset over losing 3k American lives on 9/11, they sure are OK with losing 4k+ American lives and maiming tens of thousands.