Nope, doesn't sound familiar at all. I know what I stand for. No need to stick my finger in the air or preface my posts with being both for and against the topic. I'm secure enough in what I stand for, that I don't have to take both sides of every issue. I'm not afraid to be wrong or right. How about you?
We have the freedom to think for ourselves, rathern than relying on a select few thinking for us. So I guess you could say that yes, we do get to question things. That is what free thought is all about. That is Conservatism.
Question what specifically? I question why we did not just take over Iraq. I have questioned why we have not elminated corporate income tax for private corporations. I've questioned a great deal. So again, what specifically are you referring to that we should be questioning?
Hmm, ok then put your money where your mouth is. Do you feel that even if you were fully for the war the president made NO mistakes at all, lets see you come out and actually call Bush wrong in just one area on the war. If you've watched anything, even being pro war in Iraq there has to be a few things. I am extremely secure in my stance, I'm willing to not take 1 side as both sides are full of shit when they stick to their sides stance and make no logical decision on their own. Was Saddam bad, yes, should Saddam have been taken out definitely, was the lead up to the war based on fear and embelishing that fear from 9/11? Ohyeah that's right you didn't watch it. Maybe if you'd of watched it you'd have a different opinion at this moment. Nobody with any thought process of their own is going to agree with 100% of one side it's as simple as that, call it both sides if you wish. If I wanted an easy argument I'd take a side and never argue with both, that however would be filled mostly with the stuff that comes out of the ass of a farm animal and no real substance or substantial argument that bears any merit.
If I recall correctly, it was Against the way the war was waged and portrayed. Though I have not a clue what that is all about, nor was it answered after several attempts. It sounds like some sort of cop out Kerry would use. But he was for and against the war so often, it really depended on the time of day.
Wrong that is the American way, not liberal nor conservatism. My main problem pure and simple was how the president used the fear of 9/11 to get us into Iraq when the war on terror was not over. Questioning the timing, the use of 9/11 for the war and embelishments of the facts to get us into war are just a few items on the list.
So for you, it's all about "but, but, but there must have been something wrong." Nice, that gives me an even better insight. You are aware, of course, that would have more impact if you weren't always arguing one side, while being both for and against both. Didn't watch it? Wrong. Dig that post out you think you are going to call me on with. "Embelishing?" What kind of wussy word is that? What was embelished? I'd love to hear you try and explain your way out of that! And that's what you think logic is? If you had watched it yourself, you would know that many intelligence sources from around the world came to the same conclusions. If you had watched it yourself, you would know the Clinton administration had long since come to the same conclusions. If you were up to date with events, you'd know a commission found there was no pressure from this administration to fabricate or alter intelligence. If you had watched it yourself, you would know how many democrats from both the 90s and 2002 said the exact same thing. Don't talk to me about watching! Talk to me about the actual facts. It's not about agreeing 100%. It's about always taking both sides of every issue in order to never be wrong. That's called insecurity
Correct, Conservatism = American Way. You are getting there my friend. Liberalism = Let someone else think for me and tell me what to do and how I should feel, act and think. Hmm, sorry wrong. The left used 9/11 in order to make people believe that the Bush admin went to war blaming Iraq for 9/11 which has never been the case. No one in the Bush admin, Bush included ever said there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11. That is a fact. Bush did not embellish anything. He used Clinton admin intelligence to remove a terrorist dictator from power before he invaded more neighbors, killed more of his own people and those around him in other countries, including but not limited to the US of A! What is Liberalism again? Someone thought this up and you have committed it to your mind without even realizing that it is completely unfounded and most certainly bunk. Congress took us to war. A bi-partisan congress. Democrats and Republicans, and an independant (though if I remember correctly the indy may have voted against it)... Bush is leading us in a war. Like it or not. Finally, I just need to know. Why does every liberal end up back at 9/11 when it comes to Iraq? The two had very little if anything to do with one another outside of being happy with the results. Only liberals draw a connection. I myself never have, nor has the Bush admin... Hey, it's a fact.
So again you're showing that you can not question your side at all. You are aware of course me and many others would give your posts alot more thought if you actually had your own side and not simply the administrations do you not? Again you refuse to argue or disagree with anything as long as it's on your side. You've already stated you did not watch it, must I honestly find the post where you stated it? Intelligence agencies saying their was believed to be WMD's is a bit different than stating aluminum tubes, yellow cake, unmanned arial vehicles being shipped into the US ready to attack among others is it not? That's funny since I argue when side A is incorrect, I argue when side B is incorrect. Something you refuse to do, I would call that 'insecurity' the true definition of it.
So you are saying that if these were not true, then you'd have no problem? 1) In what way do you feel the president used fear of 9/11 to get us into Iraq? 2) Saddam had a long standing history of ties to terrorism. How do you feel Saddam was not involved in terrorism and since he was involved in terrorism, why do you feel he should not be included in a war on terrorism? 3) What leads you to believe Bush used 9/11 to go to war with Iraq? 4) What "embelishments of facts" were used to get us into a war?
Actually that was not the point, using fear and 9/11 to drive the war not if the link was attempted to be made directly. Cheney however has come very close many of times, but trully was not the point. Yet again look up aluminum tubes, yellow cake, unmanned arial vehicles being shipped into the US ready to attack us, chemical labs, etc. Intelligence pre Bush, during Bush doesn't matter. How it was laid out does. Congress gave the president teeth to make Saddam comply, of which he was doing at the end. It was supposed to be last resort, the president however withdrew the inspectors forcing the war. Yes he is our leader, like him or not I'll still question him and his followers especially in instances when his followers are flat out incorrect on the facts. Hmm you honestly don't remember the prewar build up, or the presidents speaches do you? Without 9/11 he never would have gotten the populace or the congress on his side, he used 9/11 and terror to his full advantage.
Nope, I'm showing that in your case, "something must be wrong." You're not sure what it is, but it must be something. I don't seek yours or anyone else's approval. I argue the facts, not "what if's, could be's, might be'," etc. I dont' stick my finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. Where do you think the intelligence came from? Thin air? If you had watched the run up to the war, you would have already known the things I pointed out. I'll be sure and watch for it. But then it's really about taking both sides of every issue in order to never be wrong.
Very simple and to the point, every speech even when speaking about Iraq included 9/11 and terror. Most americans believed at the time of the run up to the Iraq war it was directly to protect us against 'terror'. Do you honestly believe this is not the case? The few ties that have solidly been proven and not disproven of which many have been are very few and far between. Our own CIA had stated before the war that Saddam and Terrorists would not join forces. If you realy want to compare the very limited points drawn together in this case lets also draw other countries whom we ally ourselves with who are far more guilty of this than Saddam ever was. Terrorist had much more in common with and stronger ties with Saddams enemies, not the other way around before the war. Isn't this the same as question #1? Cherry picking many unproven points, in which the majority of the intelligence community including much of our own did not agree with the presidents statements. This includes yellow cake, aluminum tubes, mobile weapons labs and unmanned arial vehicles being shipped into the US to attack us. Most of which was the imminent threat behind the war, when taken out and disproven of which they from my knowledge all have been for the most part the imminent threat is reduced significantly. If the real war on terror was under control, our economy could handle the war, our nation as a government had the money to finance the war among others I would have had no problem with the war at all. I still however would have disputed from my knowledge the facts I feel were embelished even if I was for the war. I've pointed many of them out, many of which even most republicans agree that at least some errors were made, you however continue to refuse to admit one error being made. Yet you wont dispute anything at all as long as it's on your side, even if it's totally false. I however am more than happy to argue with both sides when they are incorrect. That's having my own thought out opinion and not taking a side, you accuse me of something you yourself are guilty of not the other way around. WMD's are one thing, other items such as aluminum tubes, yellow cake, unmanned arial vehicles being shipped to the US to attack us and mobile weapons labs were for the most part a US stance and a very select list of our allies depending on the subject, not the 'world'. You have seriously got to be kidding me, I love it you keep bringing this up yet even those on your side don't back you on it. It's to the point I literally am laughing my ass off every single time. If I were trying to have it both ways I would not argue against both sides now would I? There is much more to the picture than simply being pro war or anti war, both sides are full of shit on many cases. I could be like you and simply hold onto one side so I have someone always agree with me, but no thank you I'll make my own conclusion and see the facts for what they are, not simply because they back my agenda.
Fear = liberals telling senoirs that Republicans are going to take their Social Security away. Fear was not the motivation behind invading Iraq. Removing a terrorist dictator was. Interesting. No terror attacks on US soil since 9/11. Bush is president. Hmmm... Terrorist attacks and assasination plots on an almost daily basis when Clinton was president. Hmmm.. No, Saddam was never complying with anything. War was a last resort, and that is what Congress gave the president the power to do. Wage war. Congress did not give the president another stick so he could draw a line in the sand. No one was forced into this. The president withdrew inspectors? Are you serious? Sorry, Saddam kicked the inspectors out. You might want to revisit history rather than making it up. Facts like claiming 9/11 was the motivating factor for invading Iraq? Facts like saying the President removed UN Weapons inspectors? Whose facts are we talking about? Mikey Moore and Moveon.org, or history? Sorry, wrong. 9/11 had nothing to do with it. Democrats can say that all day long, but it is not going to make it a reality. You simply cannot go back and re-write history after the fact, which is what you are doing. Yes, I remember the prewar build up. I also remember the 12 years and 14 UN Resolutions that Saddam ignored. Thank God someone is actually hear to protect the US and not just talking about it.
Drive safe man. Not sure how it is in your neck of the woods, but here in WI we had and still have some nasty storms. Just brought my kid home after shopping at Wal-Mart and got drenched. I've got a loaner company car today. My Olds was smashed up pretty bad by debris yesterday during 60MPH gusts. A lot of damage. Luckily no one was hurt. What hit my car (at my home no less) just missed going through my sons window while he was napping. ah, Cub Scouts... I can't wait to do that all over again! Take care!
Is this the same fear that Clinton used here: http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/ Or that Democrats used in the 90s and 2000's? http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=283676&postcount=4 May have been? Are you not sure? http://www.husseinandterror.com/ Saddam was actively involved in terrorism. There is no moral equivalence here. Yet a commission determined there was no pressure on intelligence sources about information pertaining to iraq. Perhaps this yellow cake? http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36632 Perhaps these unmanned arial vehicles? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 How about these aluminium tubes? http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/podhoretz1205advance.html This article is very good, as it sources many of the myths about "embelishment" you are bringing up. So there is more than just those items above. It's also about financing. But you've said you were both for the war and against it, but now say "I still however would have disputed from my knowledge the facts I feel were embelished even if I was for the war." But if we truly give the following article a read, what was emblished? http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/podhoretz1205advance.html So it's all about finding an error. Damn it all, there must be an error somewhere. I haven't seen anything worth disputing. Everything you bring up can easily be countered. I see nothing totally false, nor do I see the "emblishments" (polite word for lying) nor will I assert such while previous administrations and other intelligence sources from around the world, including many democrats perpetuated the very same thing. That, is an "emblishment." Don't know that what you suggest is even true, but if it is, where did the intelligence come from? Read the article I posted above that lists sources. Or, to use your own measure, "what absolute proof do you have that Bush was lying?" Nope, no kidding at all. Seen it time and again and even pointed it out. Is it that you are not aware you are doing it, or that you are ashamed of it? Some people feel compelled to take both sides of every issue so they cannot be wrong.
9/11 during Bush presidency, no 9/11 during Clinton or anyone else. How does Gtech think about questions? He forms his opinion by going to white house web site and reading the latest press release. Gtech You complain that every body has their finger in the wind and is a wuss while you are the one who forms his opinion by latest wind (whatever government says in that minute) and who is a bigger wuss than some one who blindly agrees with anything that government decides and doesn't stand for anything? I am sure if China occupy the USA and install a Chinese president and government, you will agree with new government to. It takes courage to stand for your principals especially in face of such a government that would like to destroy all the citizen's rights by laws such as patriot act, but to obey and agree blindly is an easy task for any wuss like you.