What's to ignore? Other than the reporter swaying people to think with his argument, I didn't see anything resembling a lie. I'm sure if you were in Dick's shoes, you couldn't remember every detail of every day of your life either. Your time is important! You are a valuable member of society. No point in wasting your precious time by continue to post combative post after post that illustrates my points about blindly hating the president and that facts don't matter. But if you wish, I'll entertain you So you admit democrats are soft on security and nothing more than hot air? I would not disagree with that. Still, it's their own words that are coming back to haunt them. You certainly don't hold them in the same contempt, do you? More excuses? More time? Another thirteen years? I'm not interested in your personal sadness. Regarding your last line, you have the option of changing that. I'm not asking you to whine, cry, express your personal sad stories to me, or how you blame America first, or how you are personally worried about how you are viewed in the eyes of others. You do that on your own free will. This is more of that "but, but, but all we're doing is asking questions and your being mean to us" BS you keep bringing up, to portray yourself as a victim? Take responsibility for your words. Don't be ashamed, be proud of blaming America first! If you're going to do something, be the best at it you can be! I don't really care where it orginates, but I can spot it a mile away. Patriotism - devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty. Correct me if I'm wrong, but do you see "embarrassed" in there? Do you note anywhere that patriotism has a four year shelf life? I don't care what would make you proud. My purpose in life is not your personal pride. Patriotism isn't conditional and it's not about what benefits you the most. I didn't follow the McCain election and it has nothing to do with this argument. Given your history of dishonesty in posting, I'll not take your word for it, as I did follow kerry very closely and am well aware of the treason he committed against our country. Who is talking about Bush's love for troops? More opinion? As long as your demands are met. It's all about you. You da man! Conditional patriotism at it's finest. For the liberal, it's not about country first, it's about "me" first. Conditional love. As long as your demands are met and it's all about you. Polls also suggested kerry would win. They don't mean much. You da man, once again! It's all about you! I'm flattered that with well over 5000 posts, with 95% in the P&R section, you've kept track of all my political positions. I bet you read palms too? You'll need to scroll back up to find the link to the ties between al qaida and Iraq. Ah, what the heck, as easy is this is going, I'll be a nice guy again, since you obviously skipped right over it. Ties between Iraq and al qaida. Uh oh, not Fox News! So classic! Who couldn't have predicted it a mile away? Aww, poor wittle mister ed! Oh whoa is me! You're a master of hiding behind your words. Cool! Can I make up some conditions and play too? I challenge you to find a quote of mine saying I think that if you eat flower seeds, your shit will smell like roses! Or better yet, make yours a little more valid and find a quote of mine saying you think we should withdraw immediately. Poor strategy mister ed! You should know better than to pull on unca GTech's finger like that Freedom isn't free.
So you think Tim Russert is a part of the liberal media conspiracy? You know how stupid that makes you look to anyone who isn't a right wing wacko? Some of us actually have to work. You on a trust fund or is the GOP paying to "spread the word"? It depends on how you define secure. Democrats are certainly more reluctant to get us into a war. In some cases that could be a bad thing; in others, a good thing. In this particular case, I would rather had a reluctant Democrat in power, or one of those flaming liberals that I posted links to earlier like Pat Buchanan. And the alternative has been better? You are so much more smarter than the rest of the American people who don't think so. Why don't they just wake up and see that you and your buddies have the one true way? Oh, you mean free will is still allowed? As long as it's tune with the republican philosophy, though, right? America is the greastest country in the world. We deserve better than Bush administration and the current repulican leadership. I blame our leaders first. America is awesome. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COZcswXS4_8 It's a "coordinated effort". You are taking orders in trying to make any opposition look unpatriotic. It's an organized effort and I believe it will backfire in November. How many parents do you think at one point or another are ashamed of the actions of their children? I would say almost _all_ parents are at some point embarrassed of the actions of their children. Yet the love is unconditional. It's the actions of the leaders that has caused the embarrassment. To keep with the parent/child analogy, hopefully the child will get spanked in November. It has EVERYTHING to do with the argument. Your comment was "Things that in turn would make you proud to be an American again." I responded by telling you things that have made me not so proud to be an American since Bush has been President. The Bush brand of political tactics has brought the level of politics in this country down to a level it has probably never seen before. The campaigns he ran were disgraces. He disgraced several legitimate war heroes, including McCain, who I have a lot of respect for(even if he seems to be pandering a bit lately) and plan on voting for if I get the chance in 2008. I don't know if the effect is more bottom up or top down but the whole cut throat atmosphere has rippled through the entire political culture, and you are a perfect example of it. Would you please prove my posts to be dishonest instead of just stating it? It is undeniable in terms of how he conducted his Presidential campaigns. You can't treat military people that way he did and have a great respect for the military. You can't pick and choose when you respect them and when you don't. It doesn't work like that. Even if the office of Presidency is at stake, you don't treat war heroes the way he has. See above. Oh, it was a lot tightetr with the Kerry polls. You know what I'm talking about and I know the reason you're acting so scared isn't because halloween is getting near. There isn't a lot of substance to have to go through. I mean, reading your posts isn't exactly akin to reading "War and Peace".
Christ on a cracker!!! Would you all please go back to one liner insults? I'm wearing out my friggin scroll wheel trying to keep up with the debating super powers here.
I didn't say anything about a liberal media conspiracy. Adjust your tinfoil hat, change the frequency to 8675.309 and try again. Don't care what you do for a living. It's all about you! It was a good observation on my part. Disappointing response, but not unexpected. One poll doesn't give you any edge here. Assumptions. Apparently so. You've exercised your free will to blame America first, inform us of your personal sad stories, let us know the conditions for which you might be patriotic again, whine, cry and moan. Did I leave anything out? Offer you a tissue? An unexpected flip flop. What do you blame yourself for? I don't have to try, you do most of my work for me. I don't think you could make it any easier on me Unfortunately it won't happen. Republicans will remain in power. Kleenex stock will soar due to shortages! It had nothing to do with the argument. Just mindless drivel going from point to point to point. I believe I was pretty clear on that, I really don't care what your conditions are for conditional patriotism. Your posts do that on their own, it requires no intervention from me to point it out, though sometimes I do. Politics are politics. I've already stated I didn't follow the election. If you need a shoulder to cry on, unca GTech is here. Let it all out. Wasn't aware I was scared. Do you offer foot massages too? So you are claiming to have read all my posts, 1.5 years worth? Yet, you ask me "Would you please prove my posts to be dishonest instead of just stating it?" Like I said, I don't have to. Your posts do the job for me. I don't think you could make it any easier for me. So it's apparent you didn't really read the post. This one? May pan out? Don't be so harsh on yourself. I wouldn't call you a retard. Have faith in yourself, hold your head high and stop self-loathing by calling yourself a retard. If you don't have faith in yourself, how can you expect others to? I suspect you have no idea what freedom is, despite using it to make foolish posts.
If republicans were doing their jobs, rather then little boys, no democrats would have to waste valuable time going after them. If the administration had sent 800 men instead of 60 when requested to get OBL, we may not be wasting more time worring about him. But oh well, Bush is not concenred with him. Only the power of using terror as a weapon to control american citizens. Take away OBL and Bush can't scare us anymore. Imagine that!
You mean like Gerry Studds, who actually ass raped a little boy and admitted it, but kept working anyway? Oh wait, my bad... Studds was a democrat, and he screwed a page, er "little kid" as you call it. Ah, there goes hind sight again... What about the previous admin, that had him, then let him go, had him, then let him go, had him then let him go... (yes I did say that three times)... Hmm, Albright, Berger, Clark... WTF? Oh wait, sex, lies and re-election over-ruled in that case. Well, he is pretty much a non-issue anymore. Not in control of anything, probably dead or dieing... What's the point of catching him, AFTER the damage has been done? The previous admin could have caught him BEFORE the damage was done. There's not much damage he can do now.
And if OBL was in paskistan, those troops could not go after him anyways. 800 guys trekking through the mountains and across borders would not have had any success. You'd probably have to invest 20,000 guys, accept major casualties for 1 guy. Is it really worth it? So, when OBL is dead, the war on terror is over? Is that what you really think?
Yeah, blame the other guy for not going first, good one! If the other guy was so wrong, why did your guy not take the opportunity when he could have? That was rhetorical, I already answered it for you. I find it amazing how the man of war won't look back on his own failures, but allows the past of others to be looked upon to justify his failure to act which has caused so many failures. It's easy to see that these people are phoneys, they don't learn from their ow failures, they don't learn from other's failures. They only use other's failures to justify, not succeed. I know 3 year old kids with more intelligence then that. Get a grip and look at the logic you try and use. It's flawed.
I'm not blaming anyone. I am just putting things into perspective here. Fair is fair... Two administrations, one democratic and one Republican both failed to get bin laden. That is a fact. To hold one responsible without mentioning the other, that's blame. Because Republicans do not self loath. They move forward and proceed... I am sure if MJ looked at all his failures, he never would have been the NBA star he was. And believe me, MJ failed more than he ever succeeded. Ask him, he will tell you the same. (man I miss the Bulls...) So do I, but then again, my 3 year old does not give a crap at this point. He'd rather play with Thomas the Train and watch cartoons than use his wit to find osama.
Sounds like fun! I miss those days with my kids. They grow up so fast! Maybe we're raising the kids that will solve this all one day? Let's hope so.
They sure do. That's all you can hope for. I was lucky enough to have grown up in a generation that really had no wars, conflicts, at least not major ones. I'm the first generation in my family that was neither drafted, nor was there a need for me to enlist, though I did at one point. These things go through cycles sadly. Hell I never would have imagined when I watched the Cards win the 82's world series that I would see Japaneese and Cuban players 24 years later coming close to winning it again. Some day you'll likely see Afgans and Iraqi's pitching and bating for your favorite team. I know my great grandfather never would have imagined, much less approved of a Japaneese ball player when he was plaing for the St Louis Browns.... Different time. In the end, it all works out for the best.
What's to compare? One was a decent president (clinton) and the other is a complete failure responsible for thousands of deaths. It's like comparing a hard-working middle class guy to a serial burglar...
So while you bash others as being unpatriotic for voicing opinions that are even the slightest bit critical of the administration's policies, you believe that smearing a war hero for political purposes is perfectly acceptable? I read it. My point is that there are a LOT of reports that have come out of Iraq that seemed to have merit, but later were proven to be hollow. Ahmed Chalabi was apparently behind a lot of the bogus intelligence leading up to the invasion(and I'm not suggesting he has anything to do with this). It takes time for stuff like this to be proven or disproven. I mean, in the video I posted where Cheney is lying, his information is taken from real intelligence reports, and yet the report concerning Atta was shown to be false and subsequently dismissed by the 9/11 commission a few years later(really not sure on the amount of time that lapsed). Did Cheney know at the time that the reports he was citing were aboslutey and completey without merit? I would say no, he was probably unsure, but he still stated them as fact, saying that they had been "pretty well confirmed", in order to bolster support for the war. To me that is lying, especially given the gravity of the situation. With that having been said, the links you posted certainly will cause me to rethink my views on whether or not there were ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. I don't think the sources you posted show anything conclusive, because we're talking about intelligence, which is a murky business, and reports are often shown to be false later, but the proponderence of the reports does indeed suggest a significant possibility that there were ties. I believe you have actually made me more informed on this issue(of whether there were ties), GTech. Can you believe I just said that shit?
I've not called anyone unpatriotic. What I have done is point out information you have completely volunteered. Apparently you have found those very things to be what others might consider unpatriotic. I have pointed out that patriotism does not have a four year shelf life. That is factual. If you believe you are personally unpatriotic and have conditions on which you base your patriotism, that is a personal issue you will have to deal with yourself. You, yourself, openly volunteered the conditions on which you would be patriotic. I've pointed out that blind hatred towards a president, blaming America first and making up one's own facts is not patriotism. Nor does masking that blind hatred with blunt attacks and blaming America first represent patriotism. Nor does masking those things behind the veil of "we're just asking questions" represent patriotism. If being patriotic is popular, one should adhere to the things that define patriotism, vs redefining patriotism to fit their needs. You'll note in that definition words like love, devotion and defense of one's country. Attacking one's country (whether with arms or words) is not there. Blaming one's country, is not there. It doesn't say do these things when world opinion is high, nor not to do these things when world opinion is low. It doesn't say anything about a four year shelf life and I see no mention of conditions. In addition, for the third time now, I have noted I did not follow the election campaign of McCain/Bush during that time period. I was not into politics at that time. Like many Americans, up until shortly after 9/11, I voted who I thought best represented the issues that affected me. I didn't know what a liberal or a conservative was, nor what a democrat or republican was. I really didn't care about politics. And like many Americans, after 9/11, I woke up. Now, I'm completely aware of which party takes national security seriously, which party promotes defeatism, etc. I have not said that I "believe that smearing a war hero for political purposes is perfectly acceptable." However, smear is broad term. If by smear, you mean exposing the ugly truth and lies one has told over the years, including making up a story about Christmas in Cambodia to discredit one's country with, only to have discovered all these years, it was a lie, then yes, I have no issue with smear. If by smear, you mean exposing someone who secretely met with enemies of our country to negotiate terms of surrender and take home action items to complete on behalf of our enemies like Kerry did, while still on inactive reserves (this is treason), then yes, I'm all about a smear. If you mean exposing someone who was an active leader/representative of a group who once held meetings to plan/plot the assasination of Senators, then yes, I'm all about a smear. If you mean exposing someone who lied about throwing medals, then ribbons, then someone else's medals over the fence at the whitehouse with so many different versions of the truth, then yes, I'm all about a smear. If you mean someone who was the leader of a group that a high ranking General in the army of our enemy personally thanked in a book, and said that without their help, North Vietnam would have surrendered, then yes, I'm all about a smear. Many of the items go back many, many years. These were not "reports out of Iraq" but ongoing links between al qaida and Iraq that were reported by press long before Bush was ever in office. There's really not anything to disprove. This information spans back over many, many years, including a story by News Week in 1999, a recent document uncovered from a massive amount of documents found that were declassified. The sheer volume of information and documented links between al qaida and Iraq is overwhelming. I've not seen any video where Cheney is lying. For more information on the 9/11 commissions comments: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch7.htm To suggest that Cheney lied, based upon intelligence, is to suggest that Democrats lied long before Cheney was in office. Yet, it's apparent who you take issue with, and who you do not. Personal opinion. Again, we see who you take issue with and who you do not. For example, Tenet claimed WMD was a "slam dunk." Further, let's look at what the 9/11 commission report did say: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch7.htm One might suggest that 70% is pretty well confirmed. One might also suggest that 40% would not very well be confirmed. I believe the references are so overwhelming that it's impossible to deny. What I actually copied/pasted in the thread is just a drop in the bucket of what evidence the linked sources provide. Many of which go back well before Bush was ever in office. An unanticipated comment. It's at this point that some might "kick you when you are down" or derail you, pouncing on your for a perceived "weak moment." I'll simply offer you a humble "thank you."