This is all your own speculation. Most Iraqis are gratefull for what we have done...maybe the few the NYT talks to are not but hey, why would the NYT portray something positive for the Bush administration? You have even quoted facts of mine, dumbass, that support my arguments...and you talk about our case being 100% speculative...look at your own. It has so many holes it is sinking faster that the Titanic.
Congradulations captain obvious...of course my last post was my opinion/ speculation, but its common sense. If you didn't have running water, electricity, food, a job, or security would you be very happy with the people who took all of this away from you? Those things are not liberal bias, its fact that conditions in Iraq are worse now than they were before the war. If you can't tell the difference between true information and opinion then you need to go back to school. But, lets suppose your right. Maybe the Media is liberal (i don't believe it is, but lets say it is), so where is the "REAL" information you speak of. Why don't you show us this "real, true" information you talk so much about? Is there no real source of accurate information in this country? What about foreign media outlets? Do their stories have American political bias? When it comes to news that effects americans, of course not, it wouldn't help them try to persuade any of the people who read it, and it would be pointless for it to do so, because it doesn't effect the majority of the people who read it. If my case has so many holes in it why don't you point them out for us. You don't do anything but critisize it because you don't bother looking into it. If we're so wrong about this then try to enlighten us with some FACTS.
What facts of yours did i quote? I don't remember doing this, so please point them out. And I fail to see how I'm lying. I invited you to check my info, so instead of being ignorant why don't you do it. Ohhhh its cause your afraid your wrong...like all the other americans who support this bull shit war...all afraid of the "evil thats gonna get us." Ohh but i forgot....Americans are never wrong.....like in Vietnam...we were 100% right with that one, or how about when Clinton bombed the factory that turned out to making aspirin? I believe i said it before, i'm not saying all liberals are right and all conservatives are wrong. But if we don't recognize our mistakes then we're stupid and ignorant. Did i ever...EVER say even once that Clinton didn't lie? No, so why are you still trying to argue that angle with me. He lied. I have no problem saying it, i never said he didn't. So i guess that means my sight is perfectly fine. You said
I don't care if he got a BJ or not...
so why was is such a big deal? He never would have had to lie about it if he wasn't investigated for it....and you didn't care, most of america really didn't care....but its when he LIED that makes it a big deal. DAMN...he was the first president to blatantly lie about something....and a BLOW JOB OF ALL THINGS...OH MY!!!!
There are currently, right now, this very moment, this exact instant, WMD that are missing in Iraq.
I'll barrow 18secferio's words on this one..."WHERE ARE THEY?" How do you know so fully that there are weapons there?
There are currently, right now, this very moment, this exact instant, WMD that are missing in Iraq. That in and of itself was a reason to go to war...that is why we went to war...that is why war is justified. Like I laid out in another post there are two places that those WMD are. 1) Still in Iraq. or 2) Given to another nation or terrorist group. If #1 is proven true all the anti-war critics can please shut the **** up. If #2 is proven true it will be because of all the opposition that multilateralism at the UN has caused prevented us from going in and getting those weapons before they could have been given away.
Now those are facts. Twist them or try and discredit them as you wish, it is a typical liberal tactic, but it is the truth.
You seem a bit confused.
FACT - n: a statement or assertion of
verified information about something that is the case or has happened
See...now that is a FACT.
Now that we have that cleared up...show me where your "facts" are. How about adding a #3. The weapons were destroyed. Thats not a possibility? #2 as i pointed out...is EXTREMELY unlikely to be in the hands of terrorists...MANY nations intelligence agencies would have been monitoring Iraq so closely (even while we were dealing with the UN) that a tranfer of this magnitude could never have taken place without intelligence picking it up. If the terrorists do have the weapons why have they not used them on israel yet? I mean shit they have as Colin Powell put it at LEAST 100 tons of these weapons. I'm sure they'd be willing to spare a chemical or biological weapon to use on their arch enemy Israel. BTW...if weapons are found...i'll be happy to shut the **** up about the WMD issue...but i won't shut the **** up for the reason for war, because Iraq was NOT a threat.
And to answer your question in bold...WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT, Investigating a blow job or investigated terrorists in flight schools?...we need to understand when this took place. BUSH WAS NOT IN OFFICE WHEN CLINTON WAS BEING INVESTIGATED! You cannot blame Bush for something that took place whaile he was still a governor. So I ask you...why was Clinton not investigating Al Quada and terrorists? Was it because he was too busy thinking up his next lie to the American people? Was he too busy turning down the Sudanese government when they handed Osama Bin Laden to the US on a silver platter?
I see you again conveniently forgot to answer the question. Did i ever blame the BUSH adminstration for the terrorists being able to carry out 9/11? No, i simply asked the question of what was a more important investigation. Now...answer the question and cut the BS.
Pretty interesting how when the heat was turning up on the BJ thing he used the military to divert attention away so he could launch missles at a couple of tents and a camel.
This paragraph will respond to the the last 2 quotes. A few things you a.) didn't know about or b.) forgot about. Until 1994 when al queda was involved in bombing the U.S Embasies in Israel, Manila, and a few other Asian Capitals, al queda was not considered a major threat to americans safety. We also did not fear terrorism the we do now. Clinton was investigating al queda, and its not like Sudan just offered osama up and he refused it. Seems you forgot that in 1995, the year before those talks were even held, al queda tried killing Clinton during a visit to the Philippines. We were in talks with Sudan, the talks were a failure. Tell me Clinton just refused, or clumsily failed to bring justice the that man who was responsible in trying to kill him. Tell me that Clinton didn't try killing him again after the Cole was attacked. That he just launched those missles to get your mind off the blow job....All of you conservatives would be going nucking futs if he hadn't done anything after the cole attack. But, once Bush got in office (after we knew al queda was a serious threat to americans abroad) the bush administation limited the investigation into al queda. How can you justify that? You accuse me of twisting information but you conveniently failed to mention any of that.
Bush is cleaning up the mess that Clinton handed to him and democrats and liberals alike are upset he is doing a good job, the AMerican public supports him, and his approval ratings remain high. So what to they do..try and discredit everything.
I don't believe Clinton handed him this mess...its just the cards he was dealt. They wouldn't be upset if he was doing a good job or they would support him. They are upset because he's NOT doing a good job. You say the American public supports him and his approval rating are high...where are you getting these numbers from? Most of the media when giving polls about his approval give them on the internet. Its extremely easy for these numbers to be inaccurate and even easier for the media to change those numbers. See what i think is strange was before the war started, Many polls said the majority of americans supported the war with UN support. In other polls the majority of Americans favored letting Saddam off the hook if weapons were found and he agreed to destroy them under UN supervision. Other polls suggested the majority of americans opposed going to war if no weapons were found. But all the sudden, when the war started without UN support, without a large international alliance, without finding weapons of mass destruction the support for war jumped to over 70%. Now can you please explain to me how that was possible?
Are the liberals who don't support him, not part of the american public? They don't try to discredit everything he does...he does a pretty good job of that himself. He lead the american people to believe Saddam was trying to develope a nuclear weapons when Iraq doesn't even have a nuclear power plant. Let me ask you this. 10 years from now, if no weapons are found, and there is no instance of terrorism using weapons aquired from iraq, and all evidence seems to show that the weapons were destroyed, will you change your view point on this Administration?