Comments on: Senate Closed Session Stunt: Aftermath

By: odograph

odograph — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:14:46 +0000

Don't be a child.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:48:49 +0000

So, NOW suddenly WFB is credible to you?
YOu hadda wait 80 years for him to get senile enough to utter something you agree with?

By: odograph

odograph — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 13:46:00 +0000

BTW, seaking of William F. Buckley Jr. (in the other thread), he has said that if he known in 2002 what he knows now, he never would have supported the war in Iraq in the first place. I think that kind of demonstrates that this is not a "thinking conservative's" war.

By: odograph

odograph — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:48:13 +0000

Not much of a "case."

By: Bithead

Bithead — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 02:59:00 +0000

Wrong Odo.
The fact is they used all available info of which the WMD was only part. And if you look up, you may note the number of Democrats who were operating on the same information.

Iraq was and remains the right thing to do for a miriad of reasons.

By: RA

RA — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:17:23 +0000

Let the spoiled bratts have some fun. Obstruct, obstruct and obstruct. Then when everyone is fed up with their tantrums, changes the rules to outlaw the tantrums.

Democrats are becoming more irrelivant every day.

By: odograph

odograph — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:10:58 +0000

The bottom line is still that the administration did not have confidence that THEY could build such a fact-based case, and so they lied.

By: odograph

odograph — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:07:52 +0000

What, the other lie? The supposed Al-Queda connection?

Tell you what, why don't you build a case, from fact, that would have convinced the bulk of the American people (and not just hawks) that war was necessary.

By: bithead

bithead — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:02:28 +0000

Come on guys, even if you are a Republican (like me) you should be able to admit that you were sold a different war than the one you got â¦ in many ways.

THe rest of us, apparently, were paying attention as regards the remainder of the amazingly long list of reasons for war. We weren't stuck on just the one.

You, apparently, were.

Short attention span, possibly?

By: bithead

bithead — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:00:21 +0000

I'm a Republican

Lemme guess. A McCain supporter, huh?

By: Wayne

Wayne — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 19:26:28 +0000

The reason we went to war with Iraq was because they were a great danger to us. Saddam was taking pot shots at us and was becoming bolder about it everyday. Terrorist, which he supported in part, were another threat to us. It was only a matter of time before the cooperation between the two increased. Saddam had use WMD before. He still had them. MSM donât ever mention all the WMD that were under UN seal. If he wanted to use them, he just had to tear the seal off. These sealed WMD were no longer being monitor because Saddam impediment of the inspectors. He also had ongoing programs. Once you have the technologies, itâs not that hard to start mass producing. If Saddam was allowed to become even bolder and he started giving the terrorist these WMD, it could have been disastrous. Then people were scream like they did after 911 that we should have done something to prevent it beforehand. Also there is the underlying problem of the Middle East being a swamp full of terrorist. Sometimes particular county would help, turn a blind eye or simply unable to control their populist. The swamp needs to be drain. What better country than Iraq, which we were already in conflict with. A small note, there has been a great deal more terrorist crackdown throughout most of the world since we have gone into Iraq. American public are just to impatient and spineless.

By: odograph

odograph — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 18:54:46 +0000

Come on guys, even if you are a Republican (like me) you should be able to admit that you were sold a different war than the one you got ... in many ways.

By: odograph

odograph — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 18:50:41 +0000

Try again. Look up, and you may note a passage where even the Democrats admit the arms inspectors were being thwarted.

We knew they were being opposed, and that was a serious concern. On the other hand, the justification for war was that they were "thwared" and that there really were WMDs. Turns out there were not, we were only deceived into worrying that there were.

Face it Odoâ¦ your partyâs positions are seriously short on legs.

Ah Bit, that might be true ... I'm a Republican ;-)

And, Odoâ¦ the questions about WMD were not the sole reson for going to war. I know thatâs what the DNC talking points are telling you, but it ainât the case, Bucko.

If there was a better, honest, case for war ... they should have made it.

By: bithead

bithead — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 18:34:37 +0000

And, Odo... the questions about WMD were not the sole reson for going to war. I know that's what the DNC talking points are telling you, but it ain't the case, Bucko.

By: bithead

bithead — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 18:32:14 +0000

Odo;

The arms inspectors?
Try again. Look up, and you may note a passage where even the Democrats admit the arms inspectors were being thwarted.

Face it Odo... your party's positions are seriously short on legs.