Let's take a walk back in time. Everyone who said that Iraq did not have WMD was painted as a nut. Everyone who said it will be a quagmire was painted as weak. The only problem dogs is that those people where right in what they said. Yet they are still labeled nuts while guys like you go on and worship all of those who were wrong. I admit Bill Clinton set everything up for Bush and the Neocons to execute and for that reason you can say he said they had WMD and I will say so what, he was wrong too! It is time we started to listen to guys who were right about Iraq instead of constantly having the press promote those who were wrong.
Bush exaggerated Iraq's ties to terrorism, Senate report finds
- Thread starter vinnie
- Start date
you know,it pains me when i have nasty exchanges with "my" libs.........seriously......
so,i will bow out....
gracefully...
/and with a great fanfare,exit stage right...:walk:
btw...don stewart..sorry we got off on the wrong foot .....
so,i will bow out....
gracefully...
/and with a great fanfare,exit stage right...:walk:
btw...don stewart..sorry we got off on the wrong foot .....
Last edited:
:142slap:...et tu?.....one more knot on the forehead....
where was i?..../with a blare of trumpets...:walk:
Squelch?
lmfao!
That list of 40 or so people supposedly killed by the Clintons has been posted 30 times by 10 different people and NOW you're worried about 'coming back hard' to 'squelch' things?
- Jun 11, 2007
- 4,564
- 3
- 0
Any other bets I can parlay this with:shrug: :142smilie :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: :142smilie
Ok lets quote your leader of this "partisan" committee--who ranting about these "deceptions"
Jay Rockerfeller
It's worth recalling that Rockefeller called Iraq an "imminent threat" in his floor speech supporting the resolution which would authorize the war.
And it's worth noting that he told his colleagues that "there is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years." And: "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now." And: "We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us. But we do know Saddam has the capability."
On February 5, 2003, Rockefeller said: "The fact that Zarqawi certainly is related to the death of the U.S. aid officer and that he is very close to bin Laden puts at rest, in fairly dramatic terms, that there is at least a substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda."
And here's what he said one week earlier, in an interview with the Charleston Gazette: "If you go pre-emptive, do you cause Hussein to strike where he might not have? He is not a martyr, not a Wahabbi, not a Muslim radical. He does not seek martyrdom. But he is getting older," Rockefeller told the paper. "Maybe he is seeking a legacy by attacking Israel or using al-Qaeda cells around the world."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That source make you feel better Stevie
Ok lets quote your leader of this "partisan" committee--who ranting about these "deceptions"
Jay Rockerfeller
It's worth recalling that Rockefeller called Iraq an "imminent threat" in his floor speech supporting the resolution which would authorize the war.
And it's worth noting that he told his colleagues that "there is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years." And: "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now." And: "We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us. But we do know Saddam has the capability."
On February 5, 2003, Rockefeller said: "The fact that Zarqawi certainly is related to the death of the U.S. aid officer and that he is very close to bin Laden puts at rest, in fairly dramatic terms, that there is at least a substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda."
And here's what he said one week earlier, in an interview with the Charleston Gazette: "If you go pre-emptive, do you cause Hussein to strike where he might not have? He is not a martyr, not a Wahabbi, not a Muslim radical. He does not seek martyrdom. But he is getting older," Rockefeller told the paper. "Maybe he is seeking a legacy by attacking Israel or using al-Qaeda cells around the world."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That source make you feel better Stevie
Okay, let me try to get this through your great big head. Why do you keep quoting the guys who were wrong? Why did the media make out everybody who was right into some kind of an idiot? Can't you see how you are being played by the media? They purposely made the guys who said Iraq had nothing seem unAmerican and insane. While guys like you go on quoting the guys who were wrong but more insanely you still listen to them. Jay Rockefeller can kiss my ass. He was wrong and should held in disgrace by every American and every freedom loving person in the world because he was in a position of too much importance to be wrong. Same for the rest of them. Clinton included? Does that make you feel better?
How many people died because the Democrats flip flopped on the war, showing weakness to the enemy was not in the best interest of our military or the innocent people that Al Qaeda killed and maimed with every bomb.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7CsH_5UTkw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7CsH_5UTkw&feature=related
Hmmmm. Zero.:shrug:
Well, technically the flip caused 4,000+ American deaths, but the flop has not added any to that total. Ultimately, whenever we get our troops out of there the flop will at least save some numbers.
Last edited:
I think the UNDER in GOP turnout November might be worth a shot.
Smurph could it happen?
Wiith clients like Focus on the Family, Franklin Graham, and Campus Crusade for Christ, Mark DeMoss may be the most prominent public relations executive in the evangelical world. A former chief of staff to Jerry Falwell, DeMoss became then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney's chief liaison to evangelical leaders."
In a new interview with Dan Gilgoff for BeliefNet's God-o-Meter, DeMoss explains the lack of religious enthusiasm for McCain and predicts a potential major shift to Obama.
You represent some of the nation's most powerful evangelicals. What do those leaders say about McCain?
This is one guy's perspective, but I am surprised by how little I've seen or read in conservative circles about McCain since February. I don't think I've gotten one email or letter or phone call from anybody in America in the last four months saying anything about this election or urging that we unite behind John McCain and put aside whatever differences we have. Back in the fall and winter, you'd get several things a day from conservatives saying, "The future of the Supreme Court is at stake. We have to stop Hillary Clinton. Get behind so and so--or don't' go with this guy." It's just very quiet. It could meant there's a real sense of apathy or it could mean they're' waiting for the general election to begin. But it's a surprise, given the way email networks work now.
Barack Obama is trying hard to win evangelical voters. Does that effort stand a chance?
If one third of white evangelicals voted for Bill Clinton the second time, at the height of Monica Lewinsky mess--that's a statistic I didn't believe at first but I double and triple checked it--I would not be surprised if that many or more voted for Barack Obama in this election. You're seeing some movement among evangelicals as the term has become more pejorative. There's a reaction among some evangelicals to swing out to the left in an effort to prove that evangelicals are really not that right wing. There's some concern that maybe Republicans haven't done that well. And there's this fascination with Barack Obama. So I will not be surprised if he gets one third of the evangelical vote. I wouldn't be surprised if it was 40-percent.
I dunno was it the surge that was succesful or the flip flop? Pelosi and the DEMS should be ashamed for giving Bush everything he asked for.
