What is needed to make Republicans stop liking Bush?

[No Limit]

um... stern, no, you didnt. Click "match whole word only", bub, and you wont get results like "believing". "bwahahahha" indeed - basic computer literacy 101. You just kept clicking next and counted each time, thinking that IE was telling you what you wanted to hear. well, i'm sorry. yuck how embarassing for you.

you want to delve into semantics?

mis·lead:

1.To lead in the wrong direction.
2.To lead into error of thought or action, especially by intentionally deceiving.

Humans are imperfect and make imperfect decisions. Maybe you should note the word misleading, stern. If bush had in fact been lying, dont you think this liberal, california senator would have used the word all he possibly could? Next please.

Democrats in the house were pissed at evidance Bush lied; but guess what, media ignored them and the republicans made them have meetings in the basement. Corrupt bastards if you ask me.

 

[CptStern]

um... stern, no, you didnt. Click "match whole word only", bub, and you wont get results like "believing". "bwahahahha" indeed - basic computer literacy 101. You just kept clicking next and counted each time, thinking that IE was telling you what you wanted to hear. well, i'm sorry. yuck how embarassing for you.

honest mistake as I was in a rush ...but be that as it may there's still 106 instances of the word misleading

as in:

"Number of Misleading Statements. The Iraq on the Record database contains 237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies. Most of the statements in the database were misleading because they expressed certainty where none existed or failed to acknowledge the doubts of intelligence officials. Ten of the statements were simply false."


that's 3 instances right there in that one paragraph ..

you want to delve into semantics?

you're challenging me?

k lets count the many ways you've misinterpreted this phrase:

mis·lead:

1.To lead in the wrong direction.
2.To lead into error of thought or action, especially by intentionally deceiving.

well since you took the word "error" completely out of context lets look if the document has any instances of the word "error" ....hmmmm exactly one:

"Ultimately, the White House was forced to admit its error."

you forgot to bold "to lead"

what does "to lead" mean?

1. To guide or conduct, as by accompanying, going before, showing, influencing, directing with authority


lets look at it again and see how you further missed the point:

"especially by intentionally deceiving"

to lead (remember that definition) especially by intentionally deceiving


especially:

1. to a distinctly greater extent or degree than is common



lets look at it again and see how you further missed the point:

"especially by intentionally deceiving"

to lead (remember that definition) especially (remember that definition) by intentionally deceiving


1. Done deliberately; intended



lets look at it again and see how you further missed the point:

"especially by intentionally deceiving"

to lead (remember that definition) especially (remember that definition) by intentionally (remember that definition) deceiving

1.To cause to believe what is not true; mislead
2. To practice deceit.
3. To give a false impression


so what do we have here:


to lead especially by intentionally deceiving



seems simple enough to me

Humans are imperfect and make imperfect decisions. Maybe you should note the word misleading, stern. If bush had in fact been lying, dont you think this liberal, california senator would have used the word all he possibly could? Next please.

what you're writing it off because he's a liberal? or because he didnt use the word "lie" ...despite the fact it's an official report it DOES inlude 106 instances of the word "mislead" ....do we need to go through the definition again?


237 instances of MISLEADING the citizens of the United states of america ...I'm waiting for you to refute them ...try not to further avoid this issue by filling your response with inaccurate semantic gymastics ...go for the gusto gh0st ..there's 237 LIES to be misproven

 

[seinfeldrules]

If I have back up for something and argue with that using sources this is not using talking points.

You have back up... that other people provided.

There are two sides to every story, stop fooling yourself into thinking that their is only one.

 

[Tr0n]

Karl Rove is a traitor.

So does that make me a democrat by saying that? (Of course all the regs already know my postion.)

 

[dream431ca]

Wow..I'm glad I don't live in the US. If I say anything (if I were to live in the US) I'll be labeled as either a liberal, conservative or whoever.

 

[Raziaar]

Wow..I'm glad I don't live in the US. If I say anything (if I were to live in the US) I'll be labeled as either a liberal, conservative or whoever.

You forgot 'stupid american'.

 

[Hapless]

Bankrupted the economy?

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050713/ZNYT01/507130371

This is from the New York Times, rerun by Tuscaloosa News.

NY Times: OMG, WTF, $100 billion revenue jump after all these tax cuts? How the hell can that be????:monkee:

 

[CptStern]

You forgot 'stupid american'.

wha? you call each other "stupid american" now? that's odd.


I think he was referring to how you label each other by political affiliation ...which is highly inaccurate because democrats/centrists/socialists/libertarian/anarchists/the intelligentsia are all labeled as "liberal"

 

[Raziaar]

wha? you call each other "stupid american" now? that's odd.


I think he was referring to how you label each other by political affiliation ...which is highly inaccurate because democrats/centrists/socialists/libertarian/anarchists/the intelligentsia are all labeled as "liberal"

I wasn't saying what other americans would label him as. Heh. I'm just saying what people outside the states would label him as. Ignorance is not always a domestic issue

 

[No Limit]

Bankrupted the economy?

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050713/ZNYT01/507130371

This is from the New York Times, rerun by Tuscaloosa News.

NY Times: OMG, WTF, $100 billion revenue jump after all these tax cuts? How the hell can that be????:monkee:

Hapless, did you completely ignore my reply? I already addressed this.

Who said anything about bankrupt? But are you going to try and argue the economy, with a 7 trillion defecit, is doing good? Let me know, I'd love to argue this with you.

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1497974&postcount=45

You have back up... that other people provided.

There are two sides to every story, stop fooling yourself into thinking that their is only one.

Okay, lets get off talking points. I noticed you have this tendancy to move the topic in to a complete other direction. By now it is 100% clear Rove was the source for at least one reporter, he leaked her identity. Now, what I want to know from you is will you be defending this?

Karl Rove is a traitor.

So does that make me a democrat by saying that? (Of course all the regs already know my postion.)

You are the only one so far that kept your promise of not defending Rove if he did this.:thumbs:

 

[seinfeldrules]

Now, what I want to know from you is will you be defending this?

I'll wait for the full story to come out. We dont want to get our facts mixed up now do we?

 

[CptStern]

oh no one in their right mind would ever accuse you of getting your facts mixed up :upstare:


guaranteed even when it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt you'll just disappear for a little while till all the brouhaha dies down ...you'll re-emrge at a later time even more determined to cling to your beliefs no matter how many of them have fallen by the wayside

 

[seinfeldrules]

guaranteed even when it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt you'll just disappear for a little while till all the brouhaha dies down

I could honestly care less about Karl Rove. GWB doesnt need to be re-elected again so his services are no longer needed. The only thing I would be pissed off about would be if he did it on purpose. If it turns out to be an honest mistake excuse me for not calling to have his head on a platter. This reminds me of when Sandy Berger stole those documents from the National Archives. After the first reports, I doubt you were calling for his head, so dont pull this 'holier than thou' crap with us.

 

[No Limit]

I'll wait for the full story to come out. We dont want to get our facts mixed up now do we?

What is not clear about this story? HE TOLD A REPORTER ABOUT THE IDENTIY OF PLAME. If there is something that is not clear to you about that please let me know and maybe I can help you out. You republicans released a bunch of bullshit talking points that have all be refuted yet all of your party leaders go on the major networks and repeat them without any correction; they are repeating lies. Now, I would expect a little more class from you so answer this. Assuming (there is no assuming but I'll play along) Rove told Matt Cooper the identity of Val Plame and put many lives in danger do you not think he should be fired? This has nothing to do with accidentally leaking the identity; even if it was a mistake (I call bullshit but whatever) it compromised our national security and a lot of good intelligence on WMDs which means he should be fired. Remember, Bush said that ANYONE involved in the leak in any way would be fired.

If I **** up at work and I leak all our technology and source code for various programms by accidentally attaching it to an email message do you think "oh I didn't know I couldn't do that" would be a good defense? My ass would be out of there quick. I don't know if you watch the daily show but yesterday they made a great point; with Rove ****ing up this big the only question Bush has is what position can he promote him to. Isn't it funny that Bush has this tendancy to promote people that screw up?

 

[seinfeldrules]

No Limit

Okay, lets get off talking points. I noticed you have this tendancy to move the topic in to a complete other direction.

.......
No Limit

You republicans released a bunch of bullshit talking points that have all be refuted yet all of your party leaders go on the major networks and repeat them without any correction; they are repeating lies.

Ahem. It seems someone has a short memory. If you want to keep discussing how you use talking points for the basis of your arguments thats fine, if not- dont bring it up.

No Limit

Now, I would expect a little more class from you so answer this.

........

Me

I could honestly care less about Karl Rove. GWB doesnt need to be re-elected again so his services are no longer needed. The only thing I would be pissed off about would be if he did it on purpose. If it turns out to be an honest mistake excuse me for not calling to have his head on a platter.

No Limit

If I **** up at work and I leak all our technology and source code for various programms by accidentally attaching it to an email message do you think "oh I didn't know I couldn't do that" would be a good defense? My ass would be out of there quick. I don't know if you watch the daily show but yesterday they made a great point; with Rove ****ing up this big the only question Bush has is what position can he promote him to. Isn't it funny that Bush has this tendancy to promote people that screw up?

Should Sandy Berger be executed?

 

[No Limit]

No Limit


.......
No Limit


Ahem. It seems someone has a short memory. If you want to keep discussing how you use talking points for the basis of your arguments thats fine, if not- dont bring it up.

No Limit


........

Me


No Limit


Should Sandy Berger be executed?

First off I didn't see your reply before I posted mine; we posted at about the same time.

Second, I never said anything about execution. If he did it on purpose I think he should be put in jail; but I wasn't even asking you that; I was asking you if he should be fired since we now know he did this. Sandy Berger should lose all his access to classified information; which he did. If he was still under Clinton I would also call for him to be fired; he knew better than that. Now, do you think Rove should be fired?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Second, I never said anything about execution. If he did it on purpose I think he should be put in jail;

Berger wasnt jailed, should he be?

I was asking you if he should be fired since we now know he did this.

La la la. Wait for the whole story to come out.

Sandy Berger should lose all his access to classified information; which he did.

For only 3 years.

If he was still under Clinton I would also call for him to be fired; he knew better than that. Now, do you think Rove should be fired?

Again, wait for the whole story to come out. If he is found guilty, then sure he should be let go. I would rather see how it plays out, much like how Dems reacted when the information on Berger was released. I think you are trying to reverse the basis of the legal system in our country to fit your petty political ambitions.

 

[gh0st]

honest mistake as I was in a rush ...but be that as it may there's still 106 instances of the word misleading

Yeah, there's no word "lie". None of the 5 officials "lied". I see exaggerated, and words like that. There is no downright lying. There's errors. There is misrepresentation. Both of which are always present in politics, if this surprises you, pull your head out of your ass. This "report" contains about 8 quotes from the officials who simply said what they believed at the time. I'd frankly be very interested to see all 237 lies; you on the other hand are willing to taking this Representatives word at face value, which I think is a mistake. You don't know all the information on the background and the full information of this article, so why pass judgement so quickly? Oh right because its anti-Bush :upstare:

that's 3 instances right there in that one paragraph ..

Wow!111 DATS AMASING LOL.

you're challenging me?

Here is a challenge for you. Quit putting so many breaks in your posts (for a computer illiterate such as yourself, that's "space"). Its always a pain in the ass to have to reformat your posts every time, in addition to reply to the normal nonsense you say here. I know its hard, but just don't press "enter" (that's the big key to the right of the apostrophe) so many times.

well since you took the word "error" completely out of context lets look if the document has any instances of the word "error" ....hmmmm exactly one:

"Ultimately, the White House was forced to admit its error."

Seems important yes? The article is admitting that mistakes, not lies, were made.

what does "to lead" mean?

1. To guide or conduct, as by accompanying, going before, showing, influencing, directing with authority

I never said that, I don't know where you're quoting this from. In addition, I'm just going to ignore all your definitions since they are irrelevant.

what you're writing it off because he's a liberal? or because he didnt use the word "lie" ...despite the fact it's an official report it DOES inlude 106 instances of the word "mislead" ....do we need to go through the definition again?

Who is writing it off? I'm writing it off because its bullshit. They aren't the same words. Different meanings, different context, different connotations. If bush had lied, the word lie would have been used and you know it.

237 instances of MISLEADING the citizens of the United states of america ...I'm waiting for you to refute them ...try not to further avoid this issue by filling your response with inaccurate semantic gymastics ...go for the gusto gh0st ..there's 237 LIES to be misproven

stern, how can you even back them up? Have you seen all 237 lies? I'm sure if we actually had access to this mysterious bush-lie-database, I could refute them. So, show them to me, asshole. I love how dramatic you like to be when you think you've won. I find it painfully ironic that you, like bush, are relying on shady intelligence. You cant even ****ing list more than 5% of the quotes there. Show me the database or shut the hell up and quit posting that link.

 

[No Limit]

Berger wasnt jailed, should he be?

I'm not asking you if Rove should be jailed. There are many differences in what Berger did and this is not the topic for that. I said he should be fired, I'll leave it at that.

La la la. Wait for the whole story to come out.

Why? Are you disputing that he leaked her identity?

For only 3 years.

Should have been forever.

Again, wait for the whole story to come out. If he is found guilty, then sure he should be let go.

If he is guilty he will be going to jail for 10 years. That is not what I am asking you; he can spin this around all he wants and he has a legal defense. What I am asking you is do you approve of what he did?

I would rather see how it plays out, much like how Dems reacted when the information on Berger was released. I think you are trying to reverse the basis of the legal system in our country to fit your petty political ambitions.

No, I'm not. I said Berger should have been fired and all his clearance revoked. I am not going to discuss Berger as again you are trying to flip this topic to something completely different. If Berger broke a law that said he should have gone to jail then he should have gone to jail. Instead of spinning this to no end he did the right thing by pleading guily to a misdemeanor and got the punishment he should have got under the law (though I think he should have gotten a lot more). Rove on the other hand committed a felony for political gain. You got my opinion of Berger, I want your opinion on Rove.

 

[No Limit]

stern, how can you even back them up? Have you seen all 237 lies? I'm sure if we actually had access to this mysterious bush-lie-database, I could refute them. So, show them to me, asshole. I love how dramatic you like to be when you think you've won. I find it painfully ironic that you, like bush, are relying on shady intelligence. You cant even ****ing list more than 5% of the quotes there. Show me the database or shut the hell up and quit posting that link.

What the hell are you talking about? What database? The database is in that link for you to refute.

 

[seinfeldrules]

No Limit, I dont think you are listening. I am waiting (as should any sane person) for the court to decide. This country wasnt founded to throw people in jail just because crazed liberals demanded it. Take a deep breath, sit back, and be patient for however long it will take.

 

[gh0st]

What the hell are you talking about? What database? The database is in that link for you to refute.

You didn't read the link, don't talk. They refer to a database that was created with all these 'lies'. I'm asking if stern can name any of them aside from the select few quotes in the article itself. And no, the database isn't in that link.

 

[No Limit]

No Limit, I dont think you are listening. I am waiting (as should any sane person) for the court to decide. This country wasnt founded to throw people in jail just because crazed liberals demanded it. Take a deep breath, sit back, and be patient for however long it will take.

No, you aren't listening. The court I think iwll find him innocent because of all the loop holes in the law and the fact the white house has some of the best lawyers in the country.

What I am asking you and you aren't addressing is ignore the legal basis for what Rove did. Do you think him putting all those lives in danger for political gain and not getting fired is the right thing? If he is found guilty he will not be fired, he will be going to jail; but him being found innocent doesn't mean what he did was right. Your own hero George H.W. Bush said in 99 that anyone that reveals the source of a undercover agent is the worst of traitors. What I don't understand is why you think otherwise.

 

[Raziaar]

Give him the death penalty!

Heh. Funny how many people here would support that, as long as it furthers their political opinions, when for any other person, such as a murderer or rapist, they'd not want it.

 

[No Limit]

You didn't read the link, don't talk. They refer to a database that was created with all these 'lies'. I'm asking if stern can name any of them aside from the select few quotes in the article itself. And no, the database isn't in that link.

No, you didn't read the link. They quote a lie and then they say Bush repeated it a certain amount of times; 237 in total. Reread it and then refute the lies they quote.

 

[No Limit]

Give him the death penalty!

Heh. Funny how many people here would support that, as long as it furthers their political opinions, when for any other person, such as a murderer or rapist, they'd not want it.

Do you have an example of these members?

 

[seinfeldrules]

No, you aren't listening. The court I think iwll find him innocent

So now No Limit is greater than a United States Court of Law. Well, well it seems somebody has quite the ego. If the court doesnt act how No Limit wants, the country should just follow what he says!

 

[No Limit]

So now No Limit is greater than a United States Court of Law. Well, well it seems somebody has quite the ego. If the court doesnt act how No Limit wants, the country should just follow what he says!

So since the court found OJ innocent because of a few **** ups by LAPD OJ killing his wife was ethically okay?

But you are again ignoring what I am saying. Are you disputing Rove leaked the identity? You haven't anwsered this yet, please do. Because if you don't dispute that you are saying what he did was okay.

 

[kirovman]

Why do people try to express indifference by saying "I could care less" (or this new one "I would care less"... which makes no sense whatsoever)? Almost everyone uses it incorrectly. Most people seem to think it means that they don't care about something at all. In fact, it's really saying you do care about it... at least somewhat. If you could care less, why don't you? What is keeping you from caring less? It hints that there is something worth caring about. If you care at all for something you could, obviously, care less... but to be able to care less you have to actually care in the first place.

The way you say you have no feelings about something is "I couldn't care less." It means you care so little that it isn't even possible to care any less. Does that make sense?

I hate to be a grammar Nazi... but that gets incredibly annoying, mostly because of the frequency at which it is improperly used.

That annoys me too, it is in fact my top pet peeve. Other errors pale in comparison to that as far as I am concerned.

 

[CptStern]

Yeah, there's no word "lie". None of the 5 officials "lied". I see exaggerated, and words like that. There is no downright lying. There's errors. There is misrepresentation. Both of which are always present in politics, if this surprises you, pull your head out of your ass. This "report" contains about 8 quotes from the officials who simply said what they believed at the time.

I dont know if you're just thick headed or just plain ignorant:

"The database contains statements that were misleading based on what was known to the Administration at the time the statements were made.
For purposes of the database, a statement is considered “misleading” if it conflicted with what intelligence officials knew at the time or involved the selective use of intelligence or the failure to include essential qualifiers or caveats.

I'd frankly be very interested to see all 237 lies; you on the other hand are willing to taking this Representatives word at face value, which I think is a mistake. You don't know all the information on the background and the full information of this article, so why pass judgement so quickly? Oh right because its anti-Bush :upstare:

sigh ...the link is the database you nit wit ..here's an example:

when questions were being raised about why President Bush asserted in his State of the Union address that Iraq was seeking to import uranium from Africa. Ms. Rice repeatedly stated during this period that no one in the White House was informed of the doubts about this uranium claim. For example, she stated:

• “We did not know at the time — no one knew at the time, in our circles — maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery.”132


These statements were simply false. As explained above, the CIA had repeatedly communicated its objections to White House officials, including Ms. Rice.

if it's too much reading for you here's this same database that's easier to read ...you can select each individual liar and search for each lie in different categories using keywords dates and even subjects ...good source /me bookmarks


now you have no excuse not to refute all 237 lies

Here is a challenge for you. Quit putting so many breaks in your posts (for a computer illiterate such as yourself, that's "space"). Its always a pain in the ass to have to reformat your posts every time, in addition to reply to the normal nonsense you say here. I know its hard, but just don't press "enter" (that's the big key to the right of the apostrophe) so many times.

ummmmm ......no

Seems important yes? The article is admitting that mistakes, not lies, were made.

you got that from that one line? read the freakin document the lies are plain, clear and backed up by direct evidence

I never said that, I don't know where you're quoting this from. In addition, I'm just going to ignore all your definitions since they are irrelevant.

it's irrelevant because you dont know the meaning of the word: "mislead"

Who is writing it off? I'm writing it off because its bullshit.

it's bullshit because ......? because what? ...ummm because there's no pictures? because they use big words? if it's bullshit REFUTE EVERY LAST LIE

They aren't the same words. Different meanings, different context, different connotations. If bush had lied, the word lie would have been used and you know it.

you still dont know the meaning of the word misled do you? it's an official document they dont use the vernacular in formal documentation ...must I explain everything to you?

stern, how can you even back them up? Have you seen all 237 lies?

have you? ...you didnt read past the cover page

I'm sure if we actually had access to this mysterious bush-lie-database, I could refute them.

well they're right there in that link ...I want point by point refutation of all alleged lies ..I'm waiting

So, show them to me, asshole.

ok , put your money where your mouth is

I love how dramatic you like to be when you think you've won.

I love how petulant you get when you think you've lost

I find it painfully ironic that you, like bush, are relying on shady intelligence.

au contrair ... I rely on the horses mouth ..you on the other hand rely solely on gut instinct and blind faith

You cant even ****ing list more than 5% of the quotes there. Show me the database or shut the hell up and quit posting that link.

you cant see me right now but I'm squirming with glee at your idiotic insistance that there's a "phantom database" ..it's right there!!

 

[No Limit]

I love to see an old fashioned political ass beating. :thumbs:

 

[Raziaar]

I love to see an old fashioned political ass beating. :thumbs:

Heh. You guys suck each other off too much with your praise.

 

[No Limit]

Heh. You guys suck each other off too much with your praise.

I know I enjoy it:E

 

[seinfeldrules]

But you are again ignoring what I am saying. Are you disputing Rove leaked the identity? You haven't anwsered this yet, please do. Because if you don't dispute that you are saying what he did was okay.

I am waiting for the final decision before I make my premature judgement.

 

[No Limit]

I am waiting for the final decision before I make my premature judgement.

Who are you, Scott McClellan?

You are refusing to answer an extremely simple question, are you disputing that rove leaked her identity? What is unknown about that that would force you to withhold judgement? What are you scared of?

 

[seinfeldrules]

What are you scared of?

Why are you scared to wait?

 

[gh0st]

siiiighhhh. what would you have done stern?

1. I dont like bush. 2. I dont like the war in Iraq.

I am hesitant to call him a liar though. Stupid yes, a liar no. Many of the reasons in that database are not solid enough for me, to be honest.

example:

This statement was misleading because it starkly evoked a threat of Iraq detonating a nuclear bomb when there was deep division in the intelligence community on the issue of whether Iraq was actively pursuing its nuclear program.

Because there was a deep division meant it was wrong? Well it was wrong, but just because there is a division in two groups thinking two different things isnt in itself much. I admit, a lot of them are misleading, but I think you greatly over exadderate. Most of the reasons are the same, vague reasons. Not "he's lying here you ****ing idiot". Then I might believe you

I love to see an old fashioned political ass beating. :thumbs:

You know, I've always wondered. Is sterns jizzm liquid form or is it simply a dust cloud?

 

[MilkMan12]

some of you right wingers are downright idiotic ..what's with this stupid obession with kerry? the elections over, get over it already. He doesnt represent the left-wing, nor does clinton


nothing short of bush saying to your face "I'm a liar" will convince you that all's not right with the oval office. I mean come on people, are you so ****ing blind that you cant see that you were bamboozeled into going into iraq? 1800 american soldiers paid with their lives for that deception ...you're all doing those dead a disservice by not questioning the motivations behind there deaths. It's as if you're purposelly ignoring their deaths by not holding him accountable for his actions


I know what you people will say: "quote a direct lie" ...that's just being ignorant and asinine not to mention avoiding the issue all together. The grand lie is self-evident: there are no wmd in iraq

here's a list of 237 LIES made by the bush admin about iraq and wmd ...disprove all 237 of them or SHUT UP

Wow, seriously...you guys just need to see Team America....it shows both sides kinda...but the one side thats not exagerated is the"democratic" side. You guys sound just like the puppets "the corperations with their corperationing"...cmon what a bunch of bullshit. Really Im seeing most of the people who hate Bush are foreigners who are not dealing with what America has to deal with. Not only that but you guys complain about Americas economy when we have one of the best in the ****ing world. Once again we have one of the lowest unemployment rates. Britain kinda got a taste of what America went through.

Not only that but seriously guys...you watch too much Fox...there was not one reason for invading Iraq. You guys are retards if you truly think we only invaded for oil, saddam, or terrorism.

Saddam had been disobeying the UN since the beggining of time...and were not doing anything they were ordered to do. The UN did nothing...absolutely nothing. What did Saddam have to hide if he had no WMD's and we were only searching for WMD's? Im confused...the ****er had years to get that shit out of his country because he knew that the US doesn't take shit from anyone...especially after WW2 when a world war was started because the US and the League of Nations let the Germans walk all over them.

So heres another reason for you guys...Mr. George W. I like to call him "messiah" or whatever, sat down and took into account the situation. We dont elect retards guys...it just doesnt and it just wont happen...so just stop complaining...as stupid as he looks and may sound in public...he is the ****ing president ok. He knows his shit. Especially his history. He looked at the situation and had to look back at Europes imperialistic empire in Africa and what went wrong and look at Germany during WW2. He saw Iraq and said "OK we cant be imperialists...so the second we get rid of the bad guys...we help them set up their own government". Next he said "we also must go there, because if we dont, we will kick ourselves in the asses in the future because we let them get away with what they did (disobeying the UN, harboring terrorists, genocide, ruthless dictatorship whatever) and let them gain so much control." After WW2 we did that because we looked back and said "why did we let Hitler stomp all over us". Well guys lets try not to let history repeat itself and not let Iraq do the same ****ing thing.

By the way I am going to quote part of the previous paragraph "(disobeying the UN, harboring terrorists, genocide, ruthless dictatorship whatever)" theres some more godamn reasons for you guys.

Next...now that we are there we have found many small quantities of chemical weapons (since they are small and can only kill hundreds, I guess they dont count as weapons of mass destruction, just like you same ****ers said Rowanda didnt count as genocide). We have found chemical transport vehicles, but of course thats just for something else. We have found homes stocked with explosives and detonators. We have also found in many places, alarm clocks rigged with explosives ready to be shipped around the world. I bet you same people complaining right now would complain about us NOT invading if those things blew up in you childs room eh?

You got angry that Bush knew about 9/11 before hand and didnt do anything. Now were preventing an unknown thing from happening (unkown cause we are doing something) and you guys still complain...WHERE IS THE LOGIC!! If Bush invaded afghanistan before 9/11 and prevented it from happening you would complain of course, because 9/11 didnt happen and you wouldnt think it was possible. Just like the different terrorist plans we found in Iraq about buses, trains, nuclear power plants, and skyscrapers aren't possible.

By invading Iraq not only did we save an opressed people from their ruthless evil dictator, but we prevented many future planned terrorist acts on not just the US, and possibly prevented Iraq from gaining enough power to start a much larger war than we are fighting right now.

You guys only want us to wait until something bad happens...basically when its too late...and then when we do that....you arent happy...then we dont wait and take action...but youre still not happy. What the **** else can we do? Nothing so I dont care. Support terrorism all you want stern and no limit...I refuse to support those ****ers. Oh and in direct relation to sterns quote I quoted, that list if you read it, is the most subjective bullshit I have ever read. Also notice how everything begins with he/she/they BELIEVED...not KNEW not WERE 100% POSITIVE they BELIEVED. It was a guess, and based on the evidence we had it was a damn good one...whether or not we found anything (which we did) it wasnt worth the risk. None of you will probably read this. Milkman out.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Now that was a tirade.

 

[OCybrManO]

Now that was a tirade.

I can agree with that, as the word "tirade" only means it was long and intended as an attack. If you had complimented the quality of it... I might have to disagree, although even if I did I wouldn't go into any detail because I've grown weary of politics.