A DAMN GOOD REASON WE INVADED IRAQ

[CHARLESMANSON]

YOu guys keep blaming Bush for "lying" about the WMDs. Did you know that not only the CIA told the president there were WMDs, but also Brittish Intelligence MI5, Spanish intellegence, and also Russian intelligence and Vlad Putin himself told Bush there were WMDs?? It's a fact.

Ask youself this....if you were president and your own CIA, Brittish Intelligence, Spanish intelligence, and also Russian intelligence area all telling you there are WMDs, and couple that with the fact that for years Saddam kicked out the inspectors, and broke 19 UN resolutions, and had a history of lying and using WMDs you wouldn't have taken military action?

Hell even Kerry said he would have taken the same action. You probably would too. You think Bush "made up" the theory that WMDs existed??? Check your facts, he was told by all the top spy sources in the world that he had them.

He had to take action. It's a shame he has to take ALL the blame for intelligence fairures though. I think the majority of Americans understand this however. That's why he's going to win this election.

 

[Kdogg21]

well those top source's were really really acurate :142lmao: :142lmao: :142lmao:

 

[Eddie Haskell]

Charlie:

In response to your question, if the ability to run and manage a political campaign is your criteria for judging a mans qualitifications for president, then this presidential race is over and Rove wins in a landslide.

Eddie

 

[dr. freeze]

Charlie:

In response to your question, if the ability to run and manage a political campaign is your criteria for judging a mans qualitifications for president, then this presidential race is over and Rove wins in a landslide.

Eddie

Eddie you are twisting words again. Although I disagree with what Mr. Manson says, and even more his actions, he states that if you are not able to run a good campaign, you are not able to run a good country.

He did not say taht if you are able to run a great campaign, you are fit to be avery good president.

Sort of like saying, if a doctor can't cut off the right leg, he should not be doing brain surgery. Whereas you might spin it: "Dr. Freeze thinks that if one can cut off the right leg, he should do brain surgery."

Maybe you should retake the LSAT. From what I hear, its things like this that trip up many of our young bright lawyers. Too bad many of them lose all sense of reason in the courtroom.

 

[I LOVE WR]

In response to your question, if the ability to run and manage a political campaign is your criteria for judging a mans qualitifications for president, then this presidential race is over and Rove wins in a landslide.

THIS IS WHY EDDIE HASKELL IS A MADJACKS GOD.

CHUCKIE MEANS WELL BUT IS ALITTLE CLOUDED ON THE TV SHOWS HE'S WATCHING.

WRONG IS WRONG CM. NICE USERNAME ALSO. USE A USERNAME LIKE THAT LOWLIFE AND THEN TRY AND ACT LIKE YOU CARE ABOUT IRAQIS. LOL

EDDIE/KDOGG/KOSAR ARE CORRECT. ACCEPT IT.

 

[dr. freeze]

point is bush lied about the WMD. he said they were there, but none were found all he has is paper to work off of and he still hasn't found Osamb bin Laden. Why should the US care about other countries civil wars?? all bush has done now is created another Civil war in Iraq and our soliders are gonna be the ones that pay the price for it.

i see its time to freshen our memory

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"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 ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has
also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I don't think people from liberal media will have any effect on campaign--as noted by HUGE drop in CBS-Cnn ect ratings people are being turned off by the left propaganda.

--typical liberal spin from Chicago Sun Times this morning--
"The display of 1,022 pairs of combat boots -- one for each U.S. soldier killed in Iraq -- is a powerful piece of public art."

the facts

Since May 1, 2003, when President Bush declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, 889 U.S. military members have died 668 as a result of hostile action and 221 of non-hostile causes, according to the military's numbers Thursday.

So we are in situation where you are in combat zone and are 1/3 as likely to die from something beside hostile fire--

Yet the liberal media makes it seem like losing less than 2 lives a day in Iraq is unthinkable---but aids kills 20,000 a year here and they want to promote gay rights and gay marriage--go figure.

and on your statement Edward

"I wouldn't buy into all the poles just yet Charlie. Kerry is a closer. Plus he's now got Begala and Carville on the team. Hopefully, they can correct the relatively poor campaign which Kerry has run so far."

It doesn't make any diff who runs the campaign they are all stuck with same problem--they can only concentrate on dissing Bush and have no positive means to promote Kerry.

 

[dr. freeze]

Kerry is a horrible candidate.....has absolutely no record other than being a ted kennedy liberal...an elitist no American outside of Nantucket can relate with

democrats really dropped the ball with this guy....or did they?

Hillary....2008?

 

[auspice]

Dogs

26 of those non-action deaths are suicides (man that's depressing isn't it?)

Heard a good line the other day from a 'talking head' about the election. "If Kerry is the focus of this election, then Bush wins, but if Bush is the focus of this election, Kerry wins". Seems about right. Has to be the worst two candidates ever. But regardless of who Kerry would pick in his administration, it couldn't possibly be as downright evil and dishonest as this current bunch. These guys in this administration must get up everyday asking themselves 'what can I do today that guarantees me that very special spot in hell when I die'. They have to.

Bush appears to have taken the lead but if the turnout is of record proportion (58%), kerry has a shot.

 

[hammer1]

What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mr.Manson will be the final outcome of our Iraq Invasion??

 

[ferdville]

"Another thing Kdogg, Bush has not done a decent job protecting this country. He has begat a whole new generation of terrorists which my kids are going to have to deal with. This cowboy thinks he can wipe them all out. What a moron. "
Eddie Haskell

You can't have it both ways, Eddie. He has protected this country very well. What are you talking about when you refer to "this country"? How has he not protected us? Secondly, how exactly has he begat a whole new generation of terrorists"?

I am not a big fan of W and there are enough things to legitimately criticize him for without tossing out hyperboles such as you have.

 

[MrChristo]

So we are in situation where you are in combat zone and are 1/3 as likely to die from something beside hostile fire--

Yet the liberal media makes it seem like losing less than 2 lives a day in Iraq is unthinkable---but aids kills 20,000 a year here and they want to promote gay rights and gay marriage--go figure.

You are ****ing joking aren't you??!!

Cotholic by any chance??...How many people die of AIDS in central/south America and Africa because the pope deems it immoral to use contraceptives?.......GO FIGURE!
Not to mention losing 2 lives a day for NOTHING is acceptable??...Fine then champ...how about you volunteer to put yourself in the firing line, huh?

Yep...kinda different argument, but not really.....

...And still the 'H' word....Freeze you quote all these things, and yet still no-one seems to care about the rest of the world ignoring the UN??....Only Iraq count apparently?

 

[MrChristo]

You can't have it both ways, Eddie. He has protected this country very well. What are you talking about when you refer to "this country"? How has he not protected us? Secondly, how exactly has he begat a whole new generation of terrorists"?
.

Don't worry, Ed...I'll get this one while I'm here.

How has he protected the country??...Um..ok, there's been no terrorist attacks in the past 3 years...Good management? Not ****ing likely!
It WILL happen again no matter who is in office, sorry....fact!
New generation of terrorists??...You really don't know?...How about America (allies) being where they simply shouldn't be, basically inciting a whole generation of Muslims to HATE America??...They want them out of THEIR country...sick of them trying to control their entire region!***

*** Not saying this is right or wrong...But that IS what's happening.

 

[smurphy]

I feel for you MC. The only thing more frustrating than being an American listening to the Right Wing and Fundamentalist rhetoric over here would have to be watching it's effect on the World from afar. The USA just doesn't understand the world - we are paying for that lack of knowledge and blind pride and will continue to pay. I hope we don't drag to many intelligent/understanding people like yourself down with us.

God bless the Troops and the Iraqi people.

 

[Kdogg21]

you can give me all the quote's you want from anybody..did they find any WMD's? nope. did the report they are coming out with find any WMD's? nope. are any troops are there finding any WMD's??? nope. did bush have a war plan?? nope...and if he did, it sure isn't working. Im voting for Kerry, will he be the savior, hell i dont know, but Bush sure isn't doing much. he is to busy giving contracts to his buddy Cheney's old company, Haliburton.

 

[Eddie Haskell]

Wayne:

I'd like to make this comment and frankly, I think you might even agree with it. We don't know what Kerry will do as president. We can surmise based on his past congressional record but we really don't know what he will do once in office.

On the other hand, we know what Bush will do. His first four years show his leadership, or lack thereof as some of us believe, and give us a good indication as to what he will do in his second term. I would submit this however, that since he cannot run again, he will ramrod his extremist agenda even further down the American peoples throats as he cannot seek reelection.

For those of you in the middle, I believe this country runs the best when we have gridlock. That is, when none of these criminals, clowns and bought and sold politicians on either side of the aisle are stymied by the other side. If you concur with my gridlock analysis, vote for Kerry. With a republican congress and a democratic president blocking each others actions, the American people may get a reprieve from these idiots.

Furthermore, Wayne, Kerry is dissing Bush, Bush is dissing Kerry. Kerry is an unknown as president. Bush is a known. The issue for those in the middle is, in my mind, a referendum on Bush. Do you like what he has done. If so vote for him. If you don't like what he has done, then vote for Kerry. To me, an unknown is better than a known bad president.

Freeze:

I'm missing your point. He said if Kerry can't run an effect campaign how can we trust him to run a country. Therefore since Rove can run an effective campaign (and God knows he does) then we can trust him to be president. Hence, Rove in a landslide.

Ferdville, how are you? Thanks Mr. C. Good points. I would add to that however, that you cannot prove a negative. Merely because we have not had any terrorist attacks the last three years does not mean that he has protected this country at all. Using that logic, do you believe Clinton protected this country "very well" since there were no attacks during his eight year tenure?

To the contrary, I recall recently hearing that little has been done to really improve the security in this country. The window dressing at airports aside, I can't give you the source but whoever it was stated that little has been done to improve security here in the US. When you think about it, tell what actual changes (other than wands and metal detectors at my Bengals game tomorrow night) exist now.

To answer your question with a question, how has he protected us. I totally agree with Mr. C. above, it will happen again, somewhere, someplace, sometime. It cannot be avoided no matter how much rhetoric or airport screeners you have, in a free society there will be terrorist acts.

As I indicated before, based on the foregoing, you cannot cowboy them our of existence. Educate, understand, use your brains and then you will defeat terrorism. I am heartily awaiting the Eddie is a wuss comments. However, one day, even the thickest amongst you will understand that outthinking them instead of trying to outmuscle them is the only way to defeat terrorism.

By the way, my third prediction. Bet the house on the Bengals tomorrow night. I don't care what it takes, they will cover. I will be there and promise to vote for Bush if my boys do not cover the spread.

Eddie

 

[Kdogg21]

im with you on the bengals

 

[MrChristo]

I will be there and promise to vote for Bush if my boys do not cover the spread.

Eddie

:scared

How shitty is Ed gunna be if Cinci win by a FG then Bush wins by a vote!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[MrChristo]

I feel for you MC. The only thing more frustrating than being an American listening to the Right Wing and Fundamentalist rhetoric over here would have to be watching it's effect on the World from afar. The USA just doesn't understand the world - we are paying for that lack of knowledge and blind pride and will continue to pay. I hope we don't drag to many intelligent/understanding people like yourself down with us.

God bless the Troops and the Iraqi people.

Hey, it's the same here, smurf. We have one of the most conservative governments in the world. "Liberal" by name, but SO far from it, it's scary!! (What is scary is that I'll be voting for them in 2 weeks!!...They have possibly the best Treasurer in our history, and their financial policies are FAR better than anyone elses......But I digress!!).
Last year they were seriously talking about making it illegal for Muslim women to wear the veils over their faces!! (Sorry, can't remember the correct term for them.))
Admitedly we did get 'dragged in' to this whole Iraq fiasco. As Freeze so politely put it not long ago, we are small, and we can't defend ourselves, so when Big Brother says jump, we have no choice!! (And that's ok, I guess...I do understand that situation.)

BUT, as conservative as our Prime Minister is, at least we can say he is very intellegent and he keeps his religious/personal beliefs out of our politics, which I think is more than we can say for Mr. Bush!


Merely because we have not had any terrorist attacks the last three years does not mean that he has protected this country at all. Using that logic, do you believe Clinton protected this country "very well" since there were no attacks during his eight year tenure?

And, if we use Ferdville's logic, can't we argue the polar opposite? Over 2500 civilians died while Bush was President....The worst peacetime disaster in US history....by inference then isn't Georgey the worst, most unsafe President in history?
Same logic.

Right, time for an afternoon nap so I'm up and alert at 3am for some footy!! :clap:
Good luck tonight, EVERYONE!

 

[Terryray]

Freeze:

I'm missing your point. He said if Kerry can't run an effect campaign how can we trust him to run a country. Therefore since Rove can run an effective campaign (and God knows he does) then we can trust him to be president. Hence, Rove in a landslide.

Eddie, what the good doctor is arguing here is that running a national campaign for President (which includes hiring the best team to showcase one's strengths and weaknesses) is a necessary, but not sufficient reason/skill to be President.



a simple, tho common, fallacy of cogency you committed--as your lame pro forma response to the good doctor's argument alledging a equipollency of logic in the two positions demonstrates.


To put it more formally, "necessary but not sufficient" involves the material implications of the truth function "if p, q". When the conditional "p, q" is true the truth of the consequent, "q", is necessary for the truth of the antecedent, "p", and the truth of the antecedent is in turn sufficient for the truth of the consequent.

for example, the Jack Daniels was necessary for RexButler's rompish fun at the Superbowl Party, but not sufficient as he also needed his cohorts, food and the game to accomplish his end. But couldn't have happened without the booze.

Having to point out lapses in critical analysis and logic of argument to lawyers is nothing surprising, as the good doctor implies. But I do not fault the lawyers, as they must speak and argue to the level of a peer jury.