If a draft is what it takes then so be it. Whatever it takes..

 

Liberal Media.. What, the truth hurts??

 

Let's see.. eight years of Clinton ignoring the problem, or 9 months of Bush into his first term? Yeah that seems like a fair comparison.. At least Bush didn't tolerate it after the first and last attack on us during his Presidency..

 

Well, at least you actually stand by what you believe. I think invading Iran would be a terrible idea, but at least you are willing to say you would support a draft. It's a truly terrible idea, but whatever.

 

I think it's pretty terrific that liberals are convinced there is a conservative media bias and conservatives are just as convinced there is a liberal bias. There isn't. Shut up. (And I don't see how that truth could hurt me. I've been as critical of liberals on this board as conservatives, check my posts. I just don't like when people buy into the stupid things they hear.)

 

Do you blame the original WTC bombings on George Bush Sr?

 

And Clinton bombed Iraq numerous times during his presidency. If attacking Iraq is the key to stopping terrorism, then he did his part.

 

On August 7, 1998, bin Laden struck again, this time with simultaneous bombings on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. (see above) The CIA, having confirmed bin Laden was behind the attack, informed Clinton that terrorist leaders were planning to meet at a camp near Khowst, to plan future attacks. According to Tenet, ?several hundred,? including bin Laden, would attend. On August 20, Clinton ordered the military to fire cruise missiles at the camp and a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, where bin Laden was suspected of manufacturing biological weapons. While the military hit their targets, bin Laden was not killed. The CIA estimated that they had missed bin Laden by ?a few hours.?

 

At the time of the attacks, Clinton was embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal. This led many Republicans in Congress to accuse the president of ?wagging the dog??launching a military attack simply to distract the public from his personal problems.

 

Near the end of 1999, the Clinton administration, working with the government of Jordan, detected and thwarted a planned terrorist attack to detonate bombs at various New Year millennium celebrations around the world. The CIA confirmed that bin Laden was behind the plot, which was disrupted just days before the New Year.

 

Clinton ignored terrorism a lot.

 

Clinton did way too little against terrorism. As far as Bush Sr. goes, I won't argue the point that everyone was at fault before, and during the 90's. We figured the oceans would protect us. Bush Sr. is a good, decent and smart man, but he wasn't a great President. My problem with Clinton was that he didn't take it seriously even after repeated strikes during his Presidency. I would also have more respect for the bombs he dropped if he wasn't caught up in the middle of the Lewinski scandle at the time. Some viewed it as a diversion type of thing. Maybe or maybe not, but he put himself in that predicament.

 

As far as what you have posted in the past, I'm not aware of it. I don't usually post much, and I mostly just read the Marlins stuff on this board. You'll notice in future posts that I have my fair share of complaints about Bush..

I'm not "on the left" but I do think people with opinions like the gentleman in question here have been put under a spell, or brainwashed, whatever. I can't explain why people think those things in any other way.

Clinton did way too little against terrorism. As far as Bush Sr. goes, I won't argue the point that everyone was at fault before, and during the 90's. We figured the oceans would protect us. Bush Sr. is a good, decent and smart man, but he wasn't a great President. My problem with Clinton was that he didn't take it seriously even after repeated strikes during his Presidency. I would also have more respect for the bombs he dropped if he wasn't caught up in the middle of the Lewinski scandle at the time. Some viewed it as a diversion type of thing. Maybe or maybe not, but he put himself in that predicament.

 

As far as what you have posted in the past, I'm not aware of it. I don't usually post much, and I mostly just read the Marlins stuff on this board. You'll notice in future posts that I have my fair share of complaints about Bush..

 

The Lewinsky thing was, in my opinion, such a joke. Bush has done far worse things.

 

I'm not "on the left" but I do think people with opinions like the gentleman in question here have been put under a spell, or brainwashed, whatever. I can't explain why people think those things in any other way.

 

And many people can't believe you support Obama, or only do so because he is black. They are just as wrong as you.

I'm not "on the left" but I do think people with opinions like the gentleman in question here have been put under a spell, or brainwashed, whatever. I can't explain why people think those things in any other way.

 

And many people can't believe you support Obama, or only do so because he is black. They are just as wrong as you.

 

 

And you.

Yeah.. because PBS is sooooo unbiased??? What a joke...

 

Everyone in the world has a bias, apparently, and they are all liberals. I'm guess you believe FNC is centrist, right?

 

Nope.. They are on the conservative (republican/right) side.. So is most of talk radio.. Rush, Hannity, Beck, and so forth.. That's why I listen to them. I agree with their ideology.. but you have to agree that the major (ABC, NBC, CBS) networks, msnbc, cnn, and pbs, are far from right wingers...

 

You probably listen to them because they made your ideology for you.

 

Thanks for calling me stupid without knowing anything about me except that I don't agree with you politically. I'm not a child. I am thirty seven year old father of 4. I lived through the 80's and Reagan is my political hero. I listen to them because I think like them. I could have chosen to listen to something else. I enjoyed Chris Matthews for a while even though I didn't agree with him. Then the Bush hatred started and I stopped watching. I'm sorry you were brain washed but that is not my case.. By the way, how do you know that you weren't right back then, and are brain washed now? Don't sweat it.. Listen to Rush tomorrow, and you will flip back.. I guess until you listen to Oberman, and then you switch back again.. oh to be you.. the horror!!! LOL J/K

I'm not "on the left" but I do think people with opinions like the gentleman in question here have been put under a spell, or brainwashed, whatever. I can't explain why people think those things in any other way.

 

And many people can't believe you support Obama, or only do so because he is black. They are just as wrong as you.

 

 

And you.

 

Huh?

I'm not "on the left" but I do think people with opinions like the gentleman in question here have been put under a spell, or brainwashed, whatever. I can't explain why people think those things in any other way.

 

 

So because you don't understand it, there has to be something wrong withme ? Maybe we just think differently? Different lives, different up bringing? Different circumstances? I guess it's easier to label me a nut job because you don't understand my thinking..

I'm not "on the left" but I do think people with opinions like the gentleman in question here have been put under a spell, or brainwashed, whatever. I can't explain why people think those things in any other way.

 

 

So because you don't understand it, there has to be something wrong withme ? Maybe we just think differently? Different lives, different up bringing? Different circumstances? I guess it's easier to label me a nut job because you don't understand my thinking..

 

And you're not guilty of thinking that same thing about anti-war people?

I'm not "on the left" but I do think people with opinions like the gentleman in question here have been put under a spell, or brainwashed, whatever. I can't explain why people think those things in any other way.

 

 

So because you don't understand it, there has to be something wrong withme ? Maybe we just think differently? Different lives, different up bringing? Different circumstances? I guess it's easier to label me a nut job because you don't understand my thinking..

 

And you're not guilty of thinking that same thing about anti-war people?

 

Well, in his defense, I don't think he ever said, implicitly or explicitly, that anti-war people have been tricked into believing what they do and don't actually believe it.

I just get annoyed by the straight and narrow attitude that the right wing has had since 9/11. That if you're not with them you're against them. That being anti-war is the 'easy way out' and the popular thing to do, and/or worse, anti-american or unpatriotic. I got that vibe from rydawg whether he may have said it or not.

 

So sorry for putting words in your mouth but I'm a little pissed off.

Stereotyping of all sorts is dumb.

I've never been a really strong Democrat, more of an independent until now.

 

 

This has been just an unbelievably frustrating administration to watch.

 

Clinton's shenanigans aren't even on the same planet as this embarrassment.

 

 

The Iraq war pretty much mirrors the Bush presidency. If ever we look back on the Iraq War with any favor whatsoever, it will have been in spite of the president and his inner circle, not because of it.

 

And to me it still won't matter. The ends do not justify the means, and I'm not even speaking of lives lost or trillions of dollars. I'm talking about faith and trust in my government.

(He's talking about Ron Paul.)

I lost trust in THIS government. I don't have a natural distrust of my government. I'd call it more of a healthy skepticism.

 

Sure, I'm aware many conservatives dislike Bush as well. But he was their guy, and he gets an F from me. McCain by all accounts wants to continue the same policies. The guy is basically running on the Iraq war for christ sakes.

Time to give the other side a shot.

 

I'm not a far left democrat, probably should've worded that better. Just strongly supporting a democrat this time around.

 

I registered as a democrat mostly to vote in the state primary which turned out to be a waste of time anyway since the state dem party is apparently run by morons.

 

 

(hehe, I know bobbob. And I like Ron Paul, penguino, honestly. For me there were better options this time.)

Here's how conservative constitutional scholar Douglas Kmiec, former legal counsel to Reagan and Bush 1, put it when he announced his endorsement of Obama yesterday:

 

"Our president has involved our nation in a military engagement without sufficient justification or a clear objective" and "has incurred both tragic loss of life and extraordinary debt jeopardizing the economy and the well-being of the average American citizen," Kmiec wrote. "In pursuit of these fatally flawed purposes, the office of the presidency, which it was once my privilege to defend in public office formally, has been distorted beyond its constitutional assignment.''

 

link

You'd all be well served to watch "Bush's War" tonite on PBS at 9. It's Part 2. Part 1 was last night. Pretty much a rehash of what we already know, but very well done. And some insight into the true extent of the deceitful lies that led us into the war to begin with. Just total lies, and known at the time to be lies by Cheney and co., but still passed over to Congress as truth, so as to get their approval. Bush is portrayed as the dumb innocent bystander. Cheney, Scooter, and company are portrayed, accurately as far as I'm concerned, as the real evil ones.

 

 

Yeah.. because PBS is sooooo unbiased??? What a joke...

 

Actually, I thought it was pretty good. The only real grinds were on Rumsfeld who, if you ask me, should have been canned in 2005 when the "sit in your base all day until you have 'actionable' intel" plan was obviously not working. The big point on Cheney was that he didn't believe the CIA at all because of past experience and with the history behind that mistrust it is hard to blame him.

[

 

I guess in your mind I admitted there weren't any terrorist in Iraq before the war.. Whatever..

 

How about I quote you:

I find it interesting that terrorists could be found all over the world before the war except in Iraq.

 

Were you being sarcastic? Well I'm sure you have proof that Al-Queda existed in Iraq before the war. Please provide such.

 

 

We invaded a country for no reason? If the mere reason for going in was to draw the terrorist there, it would be ok with me.

 

Why don't we invade Uzbekistan. Less resistance and would draw terrorists there too. Do you agree?

 

Or better yet, please answer me this. We KNOW 100% that Al-Queda exists in Pakistan. Why are we not invading?

 

As far as for no reason, you are mistaken. Saddam was a murderer who had used WMD's on his own people, he was our enemy, defied the UN and all those sanctions, and sponsored terrorism. Sounds like plenty of good reasons to me. Yes, there are still terrorists all over the world, but they aren't attacking here.

 

So why are we not invading Sudan or other countries where people are being massacred? And why is it ok to use innocent Iraqis as collateral damage in fighting the terrorists over there. It's amazing that people like you have no qualms about the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis who have died as collateral damage because we "fight them over there" but care so much about the innocent Iraqis who are being punished by Saddam.

 

bulls***. People like you and Rush Limbaugh never cared about innocent Iraqis and never will.

 

As far as creating new terrorists, that is such crap. You are either an evil, ignorant, brain washed, SOB, or you are not. Let me ask you something.

 

 

Do you have proof Al-Queda in Iraq existed BEFORE we invaded? Nope. And they are an independant entity from AQ.

 

If we were invaded and occupied, would you put a bomb around your waist, and run into a supermarket, or a large crowd, and kill your own people? I seriously doubt it. Then again, hey you might want to be a "freedom fighter".

 

If the US was invaded and occupied, I would fight to the death. Would you not fight for the US?

 

Al Qaeda and all those other terrorists are certainly not more poweful today than before the war. You're nuts. They are on the run and hidding in caves all over the middle east. Things in Iraq are going very well right now. Mistakes were made after the invasion, but no one can deny, not even the liberal media, that the surge hasn't worked.. And a simple answer to your question, is yes, I would invade another country (Iran) in a second.

 

Do you agree with the agreements we have made with Al-Sadr?

I think their news coverage (FNC too) is pretty much objective. You find the "bias" in their commentary.

 

Most people don't really understand how the news industry works, though.

 

Yeah, I find the FNC and CNN reporting to be fairly reliable, and the commentary being very biased. CNN is a bit more left wing than Fox is right wing on the editorial front, but opinion shows are not news.

Sensationalism =/= bias.

 

Television news reporting is, by it's very nature sensationalistic. They have to be, they are fighting to get the story first and they are fighting to keep people's attention. That is the reason I will always trust newspapers more than broadcast news.

Were you being sarcastic? Well I'm sure you have proof that Al-Queda existed in Iraq before the war. Please provide such.

 

AQ was in Iraq before the war, it is well documented. They were not allied with Sadam except in a co-belligerent status against Iran.

 

Or better yet, please answer me this. We KNOW 100% that Al-Queda exists in Pakistan. Why are we not invading?

 

They are not being sheltered there by the willful actions of their government. We know 100% that Al-Queda exists in New Jersey.

 

So why are we not invading Sudan or other countries where people are being massacred? And why is it ok to use innocent Iraqis as collateral damage in fighting the terrorists over there. It's amazing that people like you have no qualms about the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis who have died as collateral damage because we "fight them over there" but care so much about the innocent Iraqis who are being punished by Saddam.

 

There is a moral difference between shooting at people that shelter amongst civilian and shooting at civilians. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me the most important part of going to Iraq was getting rid of that brutal dictator. I wish Rummy had a better plan for the aftermath. Frankly, knowing then what we know now I would have been against going to Iraq, but that is a purely academic position because we are here in the now and unless you've invented the time machine we are stuck doing what we are doing.

 

And I think we should most certainly help the Sudanese, it is appalling and we are abdicating our moral responsibility by not helping.

 

Do you have proof Al-Queda in Iraq existed BEFORE we invaded? Nope. And they are an independant entity from AQ.

 

We are not so much breeding new terrorists as drawing those that are willing to act in that manner out. AQ in Iraq is certainly AQ taking on a target of opportunity.

 

If the US was invaded and occupied, I would fight to the death. Would you not fight for the US?

 

Not even remotely what he asked. He asked, would you murder innocent Americans to fight the invader?

 

Do you agree with the agreements we have made with Al-Sadr?

 

No, because we didn't really have any agreements with Al Sadr. We should have either brought him in to the fold (if he'd do it) or killed him outright.

Well put, F_M.

And where did I say that it did? Again you are putting words in my mouth.

 

I chose that word for a reason. However, getting the story first has little to do with being sensationalistic. It is more an issue of how it is portrayed. At this point, a bias can set in.

 

And my faith in print news has been dwindling over the past few years as well in light of the climate change issue.

 

I was just saying. I'm not putting any words into your mouth.

 

And that last bit is silly. You act as if they are making things up.

Were you being sarcastic? Well I'm sure you have proof that Al-Queda existed in Iraq before the war. Please provide such.

 

AQ was in Iraq before the war, it is well documented. They were not allied with Sadam except in a co-belligerent status against Iran.

 

Really? You made the assertion, now back it up, especially since AQ is Sunni, NOT Shi'ite.

I'm not "on the left" but I do think people with opinions like the gentleman in question here have been put under a spell, or brainwashed, whatever. I can't explain why people think those things in any other way.

 

 

So because you don't understand it, there has to be something wrong withme ? Maybe we just think differently? Different lives, different up bringing? Different circumstances? I guess it's easier to label me a nut job because you don't understand my thinking..

 

And you're not guilty of thinking that same thing about anti-war people?

 

I haven't said anything like that. I haven't insulted anyone on this board. I have simply stated my opinions, unpopular as they may be. I'll be honest with you. I don't mind being called a neo-con, right winger, republican, conservative, or things of that nature, because for the most part I am. Nut job is a little bit different. Telling me that I'm not capable of thinking for myself, when you don't know the first thing about me is insulting. From what I can see, you saw my views, and labeled me a nut job because I "think" differently than you. I think you are just projecting your former self (as per your post) onto me. You feel that you were a mindless nut job when your line of thinking was like mine, so I must be the same mindless nut job. By the way, I listened to Savage one time and it wasn't for me.

 

You want to know what I consider a nut job? Those conspiracy theorists who think we knocked the towers down ourselves. We did it with some sort of sonic boom and what not. Same thing for the Pentagon. That line of thinking to me is bizzare to put it mildly.

And where did I say that it did? Again you are putting words in my mouth.

 

I chose that word for a reason. However, getting the story first has little to do with being sensationalistic. It is more an issue of how it is portrayed. At this point, a bias can set in.

 

And my faith in print news has been dwindling over the past few years as well in light of the climate change issue.

 

And that last bit is silly. You act as if they are making things up.

Highly selective, filtered, reporting is no less dishonest.

 

You're opinion is skewed because you don't believe in it and have no room for gray area. You believe the whole world is out to get you, with regards to this issue, and so if the media reports things that are pro-GW, of course you are going to cry foul.