1,748 Days since the Declaration Of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

[M14 Shooter]

and I have asked you over and over and over again to suggest some other explanation for how 70% of America came to believe something that wasn't true.

And, as I said to you over and over and over:
-This isnt my argument, so its not my responsibility to explain it
-Absence of an aternative to your explanation doesnt prove your explanation.

YOU lay some importance on all of this, because YOU think this is part of some sinister plan by the Bush administation. -I- do not.

 

[maineman]

And, as I said to you over and over and over:
-This isnt my argument, so its not my responsibility to explain it
-Absence of an aternative to your explanation doesnt prove your explanation.

YOU lay some importance on all of this, because YOU think this is part of some sinister plan by the Bush administation. -I- do not.

I am simply asking for your opinion. do you have one? Are you not at all concerned about how 70% of AMericans came to believe a lie when that belief was integral in their support for the initiation of a war????

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am simply asking for your opinion. do you have one? Are you not at all concerned about how 70% of AMericans came to believe a lie when that belief was integral in their support for the initiation of a war????

There you go again... claiming a lie that you cannot prove...

You're also assuming that the belief that Iraq was involved in 9/11 was "intergral" for the public support of the war. I won't bother asking your to even -try- to prove that.

You keep believing what you want to believe.

 

[maineman]

There you go again... claiming a lie that you cannot prove...

You're also assuming that the belief that Iraq was involved in 9/11 was "intergral" for the public support of the war. I won't bother asking your to even -try- to prove that.

You keep believing what you want to believe.

do you honestly think that the fact that a large percentage of America believed that Saddam had been behind 9/11 did not contribute to public support for the invasion of Iraq?

And again.... I am trying to have a discussion here. Are you at all concerned as to how 70% of America came to believe something that was not true?

 

[red states rule]

do you honestly think that the fact that a large percentage of America believed that Saddam had been behind 9/11 did not contribute to public support for the invasion of Iraq?

And again.... I am trying to have a discussion here. Are you at all concerned as to how 70% of America came to believe something that was not true?

No yiou are pushing a kook left conspiracy theory that has long ago been proven to be a lie

 

[Shogun]

oh yes.. it is fucking hilarious to see how quickly they distance themselves from their past rally cry......


rich, indeed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

do you honestly think that the fact that a large percentage of America believed that Saddam had been behind 9/11 did not contribute to public support for the invasion of Iraq?

That YOU cannot come up with any other explanation doesn't in any way mean no other explanation exists, or that your explanation is correct.

And again.... I am trying to have a discussion here.

All you're doing is creating straw men for you to knock down.
On that, there's no discussion worth having.

 

[maineman]

That YOU cannot come up with any other explanation doesn't in any way mean no other explanation exists, or that your explanation is correct.


All you're doing is creating straw men for you to knock down.
On that, there's no discussion worth having.

I am asking if YOU can come up with an explanation as to how 70% of America came to believe something that was incorrect.

And I am asking you if you are even the least bit bothered that so many Americans could have been mistaken about something so important?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am asking if YOU can come up with an explanation as to how 70% of America came to believe something that was incorrect.

Yes. You are.
And I don't care about your pet conspiracies, given that's all they are.

 

[red states rule]

I am asking if YOU can come up with an explanation as to how 70% of America came to believe something that was incorrect.

And I am asking you if you are even the least bit bothered that so many Americans could have been mistaken about something so important?

Your worn out kook left conspiracy theories?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am asking if YOU can come up with an explanation as to how 70% of America came to believe something that was incorrect.

And I am asking you if you are even the least bit bothered that so many Americans could have been mistaken about something so important?

Are you worried that a lot of people believe the Government was involved in 9/11? It is as relevant a question as the one your asking. Your insistance that because people believed something means the Admin conned them into believing it fails miserably when one can google up time after time that every senior member that ever talked about Iraq STATED for the record over and over Saddam Hussein had no links to 9/11.

I have a better question, why did all those powerful Democrats support the war? Did they to believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11? Why did our Congress vote to allow the invasion? Were they too convinced that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11?

Last I checked we did not hold a popular vote to go to war, we used our Congress to approve it. Are you saying that every member that voted for war was hoodwinked into believing Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11?

The Intelligence was clear, now trot out your other tired lie about how Bush got every intelligence agency in the world to lie for him, how he gor Clinton to lie for him... on and on.

 

[maineman]

ONEAre you worried that a lot of people believe the Government was involved in 9/11? It is as relevant a question as the one your asking. Your insistance that because people believed something means the Admin conned them into believing it fails miserably when one can google up time after time that every senior member that ever talked about Iraq STATED for the record over and over Saddam Hussein had no links to 9/11.

I have a better question, TWOwhy did all those powerful Democrats support the war? THREEDid they to believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11? FOURWhy did our Congress vote to allow the invasion? FIVEWere they too convinced that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11?

Last I checked we did not hold a popular vote to go to war, we used our Congress to approve it. SIXAre you saying that every member that voted for war was hoodwinked into believing Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11?

SEVENThe Intelligence was clear, now trot out your other tired lie about how Bush got every intelligence agency in the world to lie for him, how he gor Clinton to lie for him... on and on.

you seem to have a lot of questions but can't find the cojones to answer one.

I will now answer all of yours and maybe that will cause a similar response.

ONE. Yes. I do not believe the government had any involvement and pity those who do. But wacko conspiracy theorists have always been a part of American politics. And as I have said over and over again. Administration officials denied the connection lamely and lately. For months and months in the fall of 2002, speech after speech referred to Al Qaeda, 9/11, WMD's and Saddam...over and over and over again. But hey....if that had nothing to do with 70% of America getting it wrong, show some stones and offer up YOUR suggestion as to how and why they were deceived.

TWO. First.... a majority of democrats elected to congress voted AGAINST the war...the rest caved into the brilliant posturing of the Rove Team that made the vote one about patriotism... I was upset with all of them.

THREE. No. They believed that they would lose their seats in congress if the public perceived them as being soft on Saddam..the guy who most of them felt was responsible for 9/11.

FOUR and FIVE. Asked and answered above.

SIX. Like I have said. Democrats voted to keep their seats. THey were aware of the 70% figure like everyone else. They felt that if they voted against the war, that their constituents would consider that they had voted against a war designed to get the guy who planned 9/11. They caved. I was and remain furious with all who did.


SEVEN. The intelligence was far from "clear". It was loaded with caveats and qualifiers. There was certainly plenty of indications that Saddam might have been involved with weapons of mass destruction... but there was ZERO intell that he was involved with 9/11....yet 70% of America believed he had been...which provided the political leverage to convince job security conscious congressmen and women to vote to give Bush the authority to use force as a last resort rather than risk the wrath of their constituencies.

 

[Big_D]

Mr. Red states Rule, why didnt you answer my question?

 

[maineman]

Mr. Red states Rule, why didnt you answer my question?

don't feel like the Lone Ranger, Big D. RSR never answers ANYBODY's questions. He just cuts and pastes long winded oped pieces and calls them facts, or he posts pithy little one-liners from Rush Limbaugh which is about all his minuscule intellect can remember.

pistol whipping him with words is a guilty pleasure...but after a while it gives you a feeling of what it must be like to physically assault a retarded kid in a wheelchair.

 

[Alpha1]

you seem to have a lot of questions but can't find the cojones to answer one.

I will now answer all of yours and maybe that will cause a similar response.

ONE. Yes. I do not believe the government had any involvement and pity those who do. But wacko conspiracy theorists have always been a part of American politics. And as I have said over and over again. Administration officials denied the connection lamely and lately. For months and months in the fall of 2002, speech after speech referred to Al Qaeda, 9/11, WMD's and Saddam...over and over and over again. But hey....if that had nothing to do with 70% of America getting it wrong, show some stones and offer up YOUR suggestion as to how and why they were deceived.

TWO. First.... a majority of democrats elected to congress voted AGAINST the war...the rest caved into the brilliant posturing of the Rove Team that made the vote one about patriotism... I was upset with all of them.

THREE. No. They believed that they would lose their seats in congress if the public perceived them as being soft on Saddam..the guy who most of them felt was responsible for 9/11.

FOUR and FIVE. Asked and answered above.

SIX. Like I have said. Democrats voted to keep their seats. THey were aware of the 70% figure like everyone else. They felt that if they voted against the war, that their constituents would consider that they had voted against a war designed to get the guy who planned 9/11. They caved. I was and remain furious with all who did.


SEVEN. The intelligence was far from "clear". It was loaded with caveats and qualifiers. There was certainly plenty of indications that Saddam might have been involved with weapons of mass destruction... but there was ZERO intell that he was involved with 9/11....yet 70% of America believed he had been...which provided the political leverage to convince job security conscious congressmen and women to vote to give Bush the authority to use force as a last resort rather than risk the wrath of their constituencies.

Biden, Cleland, Clinton, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Edwards, Feinstein, Harkin,

Hollings, Kerry, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Reid, Rockefeller, Schumer, Toricelli, etc.

These are just some of the BIG NAME leaders in the Democratic Senate that helped pass the War Resolution....


What I find disturbing is the blame game played so skillfully by the left....

Those infamous Dem. quotes, over 6 years, on the subject of Saddam, Iraq, and WMD seem to be forgotten as playing no part in the events that ensued... show me the same level of saber rattling from the other side, during THAT time....

And mm will insist on playing word games and parsing those quotes until he can convince others the words didn't really mean what they say....like it depends on what the meaning of "know" is...or they didn't specifically use the word 'invade'...spin till the end....

The fact that Biden, Cleland, Clinton, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Edwards, Feinstein, Harkin, Hollings, Kerry, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Reid, Rockefeller, Schumer, Toricelli, etc. helped pass the resolution that gave the President the authority to invade Iraq is now spun to say, "well, most Democrats voted against it", as if it matters.....so now the Democrats accept no responsibility

That when the going got tough, the Dems just put their tails between their legs and wanted to run home....with inane accusations like, "Bush just caused more terrorists"....or because Bush uttered 9/11 and Saddam in the same speech, he was saying Iraq was behind 9/11, it never happened....that idea came directly from the Democrats and took hold and began a life of its own....a lie repeated over and over does become the truth for some....

like I said in another post...if I use rabbit shit and candy in the same sentence, mm would say I was implying the candy was made from rabbit shit...
maybe those 70% he keeps talking about were mostly liberals....

Instead of the blame game, it would have been to our advantage to come together as one Nation, so some unity and resolve....instead of crying over spilled milk and playing the lame blame bullshit game....but we know that ain't gonna happen.....

Yes...we have met the enemy, and they seem to be mostly Dimocrats.....
----------------------

 

[maineman]

Biden, Cleland, Clinton, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Edwards, Feinstein, Harkin,

Hollings, Kerry, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Reid, Rockefeller, Schumer, Toricelli, etc.

These are just some of the BIG NAME leaders in the Democratic Senate that helped pass the War Resolution....


What I find disturbing is the blame game played so skillfully by the left....

Those infamous Dem. quotes, over 6 years, on the subject of Saddam, Iraq, and WMD seem to be forgotten as playing no part in the events that ensued... show me the same level of saber rattling from the other side, during THAT time....

And mm will insist on playing word games and parsing those quotes until he can convince others the words didn't really mean what they say....like it depends on what the meaning of "know" is...or they didn't specifically use the word 'invade'...spin till the end....

The fact that Biden, Cleland, Clinton, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Edwards, Feinstein, Harkin, Hollings, Kerry, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Reid, Rockefeller, Schumer, Toricelli, etc. helped pass the resolution that gave the President the authority to invade Iraq is now spun to say, "well, most Democrats voted against it", as if it matters.....so now the Democrats accept no responsibility

That when the going got tough, the Dems just put their tails between their legs and wanted to run home....with inane accusations like, "Bush just caused more terrorists"....or because Bush uttered 9/11 and Saddam in the same speech, he was saying Iraq was behind 9/11, it never happened....that idea came directly from the Democrats and took hold and began a life of its own....a lie repeated over and over does become the truth for some....

like I said in another post...if I use rabbit shit and candy in the same sentence, mm would say I was implying the candy was made from rabbit shit...
maybe those 70% he keeps talking about were mostly liberals....

Instead of the blame game, it would have been to our advantage to come together as one Nation, so some unity and resolve....instead of crying over spilled milk and playing the lame blame bullshit game....but we know that ain't gonna happen.....

Yes...we have met the enemy, and they seem to be mostly Dimocrats.....
----------------------

the fact remains, and you cannot escape it, that a majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution while the republicans were all but uninimous in their support of it.

but DO keep tap dancing, it is rather droll!

oh, and FYI, I was fully supportive of Bush in the wake of 9/11. I volunteered to go back on active duty. I was quite pleased with everything he did up until Tora Bora...and then he lost me....and then he quit talking about OBL and started talking about Saddam and he REALLY lost me. But he had me at one time. I was totally supportive of this president until he acted so irresponsibly that he lost my support.

 

[Alpha1]

the fact remains, and you cannot escape it, that a majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution while the republicans were all but uninimous in their support of it.

Quite IRRELEVANT....like most of you rants...but I'll venture you actually think your logic is reasonable in some twisted way...try a little cheap gin that kool-ade....

but DO keep tap dancing, it is rather droll!

oh, and FYI, I was fully supportive of Bush in the wake of 9/11. I volunteered to go back on active duty. I was quite pleased with everything he did up until Tora Bora...and then he lost me....and then he quit talking about OBL and started talking about Saddam and he REALLY lost me. But he had me at one time. I was totally supportive of this president until he acted so irresponsibly that he lost my support.

I'm ecstatic you didn't get back on active duty...personally, in my foxhole, I'd feel safer with a KKK member on my right and a Black Panther on my left...

You almost sound like you might think Bush was giving the orders at Tora Bora...(you do don't you ?)
And long before Bush publicly mentioned Saddam, your Dims were continually mouthing the infamous quotes...as a matter of fact they had been for the previous 4 years of so....they sure weren't on the Senate floor ranting about AQ in those years.....

 

[Annie]

the fact remains, and you cannot escape it, that a majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution while the republicans were all but uninimous in their support of it.

but DO keep tap dancing, it is rather droll!

oh, and FYI, I was fully supportive of Bush in the wake of 9/11. I volunteered to go back on active duty. I was quite pleased with everything he did up until Tora Bora...and then he lost me....and then he quit talking about OBL and started talking about Saddam and he REALLY lost me. But he had me at one time. I was totally supportive of this president until he acted so irresponsibly that he lost my support.

Funny thing, I was 'cashed out' on Bush by the time of 9/11. He got me immediately after, again. I'd written him off, after working on his campaign. I must say, at this late date, my pre-9/11 take was more correct. I guess that is why I don't fit in the molds.

 

[maineman]

I'm ecstatic you didn't get back on active duty...personally, in my foxhole, I'd feel safer with a KKK member on my right and a Black Panther on my left...

You almost sound like you might think Bush was giving the orders at Tora Bora...(you do don't you ?)
And long before Bush publicly mentioned Saddam, your Dims were continually mouthing the infamous quotes...as a matter of fact they had been for the previous 4 years of so....they sure weren't on the Senate floor ranting about AQ in those years.....

you. of course, would not be caught anywhere near a foxhole, so your initial statement is pretty hollow and meaningless rhetoric.

I do NOT think that Bush gave orders at Tora Bora. I do think that he decided to shift targets.... he DID promise to look in every cave and under every rock until he caught OBL and then, not too long after that admitted that he hardly ever thought of him anymore.

and I notice you can't quite bring yourself to admit that a majority of democrats voted against the use of force.

I understand...it is rather embarrassing for you, I am sure.

 

[Alpha1]

you. of course, would not be caught anywhere near a foxhole, so your initial statement is pretty hollow and meaningless rhetoric.

I do NOT think that Bush gave orders at Tora Bora. I do think that he decided to shift targets.... he DID promise to look in every cave and under every rock until he caught OBL and then, not too long after that admitted that he hardly ever thought of him anymore.

and I notice you can't quite bring yourself to admit that a majority of democrats voted against the use of force.

I understand...it is rather embarrassing for you, I am sure.

Embarrassing? Surely you jest....

Only the big names....4 actually running for President next year....

Biden, Cleland, Clinton, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Edwards, Feinstein, Harkin,

Hollings, Kerry, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Reid, Rockefeller, Schumer,

Toricelli, etc.

and its still irrelevant .... its was more than enough, nobody really gives a shit about clowns like Kennedy and admitted socialists like the boys from your neck of woods....

I'd prefer a few hundred dead AQ in Baghdad than one old figurehead...his 10 minutes of infamy is long past.....but hell, thats just me....
Clinton didn't get him and Bush didn't get him.....sounds like a tie to me...