Thursday at 9 on MSNBC the truth will be told

[Truth Detector]

why weren't you all up in the government's grill to go stop the genocide in Rwanda or the atrocities of Idi Amin or the atrocities of the Shah of Iran? Why, when we really should have been worried about where the fuck Al Qaeda was and how in the fuck we were going to neutralize them, were you all bleeding heart compassionate about the poor folks in Iraq, when you're boys had been perfectly happy to deal with him for decades before that? hypocrite.

This is what always happens with idiots and dunces; they get called on their stupidity, and then jump to the next stupid claim in a never ending circle of stupidity.

There's a reason I call you a dishonest moron; this is a great example.

What a fucking asshole you are. The best part is that you are ignoring me so I don't have to suffer more of your endless stupidity by responding.

 

[Truth Detector]

twenty year old canisters of degraded goo.... yeah... when AQ and OBL are on the loose, it makes all the fucking sense in the WORLD to waste a trillion dollars and suffer 40K casualties ourselves, and cause well over two hundred thousand civilian casualties in Iraq for twenty year old canisters of degraded goo. smart stuff.

LMAO

 

[Belieber]

The truth is the truth. You'll find very few lefties who forgive the Democrats for that - they were cowards.

But, without doubt, the Bush admin framed that entire vote around patriotism, and showing a "united front" to Saddam (to supposedly force his hand on inspections, but it was all wink, wink, we know it will be war, really). Democrats who opposed it were basically branded as traitors and terrorist sympathizers.

You either have serious reading comprehension problems or you skimmed the conversation too quickly. Maineman said my comment about the Clintons and other democrats was "bullshit". Thus, what he said is not true.

Of course Bush would frame it around patriotism. Obama and any other president frames big issues around patriotism. Bush would be an idiot not to. Those who oppose obama's policies, like ACA, are branded traitors, unamerican and terrorists. Not sympathizers, but actually terrorists.

It goes both ways Onceler.

 

[Truth Detector]

Not sure how a brain would have to work to arrive at that conclusion.

Of course you wouldn’t; first you have to HAVE a brain in order to know how one works shit-for-brains.

My position has been consistent since 2002. On this thread alone, you've moved the goalposts about 3 times.

Yes; consistently stupid and false. Yay you!

You righties don't have a leg to stand on w/ Iraq. Biggest foreign policy blunder in modern times.

LMAO; we don’t have a leg to stand on yet the war is over and the troops have now been retreated so that Iraq can fall into a mess. That will be Barakus Obamanous (the imperial President) legacy.

Give me your best LOL now.

Nothing funny about your repugnant stupidity dumbass; it would be funny if morons like you didn’t vote for and elect the dumbest most inept inexperienced person in the history of the Presidency. It will take decades to pay off the debt, re-do the global mistakes and revamp the economy.

You really are too stupid for prime time; the irony is that you are, again, too stupid to comprehend it. Between you and Mainetard, you might add up to an IQ of 2 perhaps.

What is entertaining is the misplaced arrogance idiots like you have thinking you know what it is you are talking about; now THAT is amusing.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Of course you wouldn’t; first you have to HAVE a brain in order to know how one works shit-for-brains.

Yes; consistently stupid and false. Yay you!

LMAO; we don’t have a leg to stand on yet the war is over and the troops have now been retreated so that Iraq can fall into a mess. That will be Barakus Obamanous (the imperial President) legacy.

Nothing funny about your repugnant stupidity dumbass; it would be funny if morons like you didn’t vote for and elect the dumbest most inept inexperienced person in the history of the Presidency. It will take decades to pay off the debt, re-do the global mistakes and revamp the economy.

You really are too stupid for prime time; the irony is that you are, again, too stupid to comprehend it. Between you and Mainetard, you might add up to an IQ of 2 perhaps.

What is entertaining is the misplaced arrogance idiots like you have thinking you know what it is you are talking about; now THAT is amusing.

I don't mean this to offend, but your posts are kinda boring & repetitive.

 

[Belieber]

fuck you. I never would have voted for the war... and I have never voted for a democrat who DID vote for the war who did not, at some point, apologize for the mistake he or she made in casting it.

You are quite a sensitive individual. Easily upset because someone on the internet proved you wrong and pointed out how silly your logic is. I bet you live alone and eat donuts all day, typing away on a computer coated with white powder sugar and donut crums.

Whether you have voted or not, does not take away from the facts I laid out for you. Your response was to blame republicans for the democrat vote. That is not accountability, that is whinyavoidaccountabilityness. My hunch from this post is, you are just a whiny liberal who can't make heads or tale of logic.

 

[Truth Detector]

To be fair, I only call someone a Bush apologist if they spend their entire day apologizing profusely for Bush, and are dedicated to making excuses for the man.

But that’s the irony of your incredible stupidity; no one here is apologizing for him you retard. We’re merely correcting the strawmen and stupid lies you and Mainetard constantly erupt with; but again, you’re too stupid to even comprehend that much.

Now, give me your best "you so stupid!" Maybe PMP can follow it with a blistering "lol," and NOVA can chime in with a "hits just keep comin'".

I’m glad you wear “stupid” with such pride; it looks natural on you.

Regular Algonquin round table here w/ you righties...

I guess it’s better than be a super retard like you right?

 

[Truth Detector]

I don't mean this to offend, but your posts are kinda boring & repetitive.

LMAO; irony.

 

[Truth Detector]

You are quite a sensitive individual. Easily upset because someone on the internet proved you wrong and pointed out how silly your logic is. I bet you live alone and eat donuts all day, typing away on a computer coated with white powder sugar and donut crums.

Whether you have voted or not, does not take away from the facts I laid out for you. Your response was to blame republicans for the democrat vote. That is not accountability, that is whinyavoidaccountabilityness. My hunch from this post is, you are just a whiny liberal who can't make heads or tale of logic.

BINGO!!

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

You either have serious reading comprehension problems or you skimmed the conversation too quickly. Maineman said my comment about the Clintons and other democrats was "bullshit". Thus, what he said is not true.

Of course Bush would frame it around patriotism. Obama and any other president frames big issues around patriotism. Bush would be an idiot not to. Those who oppose obama's policies, like ACA, are branded traitors, unamerican and terrorists. Not sympathizers, but actually terrorists.

It goes both ways Onceler.

It does, but you won't hear me defending Obama these days or his tactics - especially like these koolaiders still defend Bush.

But, a war vote should BE a war vote, and framed that way. A decision like that is too vital, too disastrous if it's wrong; it's life or death on so many levels (you can argue that about healthcare, but there is no comparison, imo).

If you want to go to war, declare it & have a straight up vote. Have some strength of conviction - don't try to cloud it & hoodwink everyone.

 

[Belieber]

It does, but you won't hear me defending Obama these days or his tactics - especially like these koolaiders still defend Bush.

But, a war vote should BE a war vote, and framed that way. A decision like that is too vital, too disastrous if it's wrong; it's life or death on so many levels (you can argue that about healthcare, but there is no comparison, imo).

If you want to go to war, declare it & have a straight up vote. Have some strength of conviction - don't try to cloud it & hoodwink everyone.

Comparing the ACA to war is of course not accurate at all.

As to war, I have to disagree. We limited the president certain military powers with the War Powers Act and if we actually held the president to the time line in the act, then we would not end up with Iraq or Vietnam. This open ended "war", which is not a legal or technical war under our laws, is ridiculous. Get rid of the act because it does nothing.

After 60 days and the time to bring out troops home, shut it down or declare war.

 

[Belieber]

BINGO!!

Why am I not surprised I could peg that guy within a few posts back and forth with him.

Whiny tools like that abound on the interwebs.

 

[maineman]

why am I not surprised that you would gravitate to truth deflector. You said that Saddam needed to go, and cited pre-9/11 rhetoric from the Clinton's as proof that democrats felt that way. As I said, I was furious with elected members of my party that seemed to care more about the next election than the lives of servicemen and women they were allowing to be sent into the breach. And again.... saber rattling about Saddam pre-9/11 was always good for the Jewish vote, but he really was a tinhorn dictator without the ability to do too much harm to us. After 9/11, it became clear to many of us that our real enemies were Islamic extremists and NOT secular pan arab ba'athists. I guess for others of you, that lesson was a little slower in the learning. From a realpolitik perspective, Saddam was an asshole, but he served our purposes much better in power than out of it. With him in Iraq, sunnis and shi'ites were not slaughtering one another... the radical Islamic extremists were kept from having free rein in Iraq, Iran's regional aspirations were kept in check, and we would have had 40 thousand more able bodied men and women to fight the real enemy and a trillion dollars more to fight them with.

 

[NOVA]

That was, according to the chimp whose fecal material you perpetually have crusting your nose, our ONLY mission. We invaded Iraq for one reason.... to disarm him of weapons it turned out he didn't even have. And you think that was a SMART move??

Correcting your ignorant rants is getting tiresome...

The Iraq War Resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq
1. Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.

1. Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" 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."
3. Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
4. Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
5. Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
6. Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
7. Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
8. The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
9. The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
10. The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
11. 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.

I can't work miracles mm, but I could get your IQ into the triple digits if you would promise to pay attention

 

[maineman]

your beloved president summarized it so nicely:

"Our mission [note the singular use of mission, not missions] is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament.” Dubya, 3/6/03

 

[maineman]

the day I take any sort of advice from a cowardly landlubber wog, I've given my sons advance instructions to shoot me.

 

[NOVA]

With him in Iraq, sunnis and shi'ites were not slaughtering one another... the radical Islamic extremists were kept from having free rein in Iraq, Iran's regional aspirations were kept in check, and we would have had 40 thousand more able bodied men and women to fight the real enemy and a trillion dollars more to fight them with.

Personally, I'm quite at ease with the Sunnis and Shi'ites killing each other...I'm for giving AK47's and ammo to both sides, for free....

Iran's regional aspirations were kept in check ?...Well, Saddam is gone for a decade, when do you think Iran is gonna take advantage of that to satisfy their "regional aspirations"

we would have had 40 thousand more able bodied men and women to fight the real enemy?

???????? Are you implying we have 40,000 troops surrounding Iran or something to keep them from their "regional aspirations" ?....If you put a little thought into that spin, you can
say thats the reason there was no one to left to rescue the Libyan ambassador...they were all on alert to put down Iranian "regional aspirations"....Hahahaha

and seriously, whats another trillion dollars when you've already spent 17 trillion you don't have....not worth bending over to pick off the sidewalk...

 

[maineman]

Personally, I'm quite at ease with the Sunnis and Shi'ites killing each other...I'm for giving AK47's and ammo to both sides, for free....

Iran's regional aspirations were kept in check ?...Well, Saddam is gone for a decade, when do you think Iran is gonna take advantage of that to satisfy their "regional aspirations"

we would have had 40 thousand more able bodied men and women to fight the real enemy?

???????? Are you implying we have 40,000 troops surrounding Iran or something to keep them from their "regional aspirations" ?....If you put a little thought into that spin, you can
say thats the reason there was no one to left to rescue the Libyan ambassador...they were all on alert to put down Iranian "regional aspirations"....Hahahaha

and seriously, whats another trillion dollars when you've already spent 17 trillion you don't have....not worth bending over to pick off the sidewalk...

you're dumber than a sack of hair, I swear.

Do you think that Iran has made more of a ruckus over the past decade than when Saddam was in power? yes or no?

the real enemy is Islamic extremism, not secular pan arab ba'athism. If we hadn't invaded Iraq, the 40K casualties we have suffered in Iraq would be available to fight the real enemy. Who said fuck all about Iran being our enemy, you lummox?

 

[NOVA]

the day I take any sort of advice from a cowardly landlubber wog, I've given my sons advance instructions to shoot me.

Not a good move, foghorn...if their anything like you, they could shoot their eyes out looking down the barrel wanting to see the bullet to come out...find another way...
they could register as Republicans so you could die of shame...that would be cool.

that reminds me of a very good friend, big union man, blue blood democrat....his oldest kid went to Georgetown University and become the president of the Young Republicans..
God, that was great....it still beings a smile to my face....

 

[maineman]

Iran's regional aspirations were kept in check ?...Well, Saddam is gone for a decade, when do you think Iran is gonna take advantage of that to satisfy their "regional aspirations"

A good read, but there may be some big words in there so you should probably have your dictionary close by before attempting to read it.

http://www.iar-gwu.org/sites/default/files/articlepdfs/Saudi Arabia and Iran.pdf

a cogent quote from the article:

"The most significant impact of US action in the Gulf region was the elimination of “Iraq as an effective regional buffer vis-à-vis Iran, whose influence over its neighbor immediately increased.”