The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

ATV wrote:

I'm simply stating that the Dem's aren't innocent in this matter.

No, they're not. You're implying, though, that the Democrats are just as guilty. The numbers don't support this. This is aside from the fact it was a Republican administration that was behind the whole push to begin with.

The dems were guilty of being intimidated and suckered. They didn't order up the war; they did, however, turn the machinery of war over to a moron.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Correction: Nearly everyone thought there was good reason to believe Saddam had WMD. As we now know Bush, the CIA, Cheney, other neocons at the top, and the arms inspectors were the exceptions. They knew there was no proof Saddam had WMD. That's why they deliberately distributed bogus photos, diagrams of mobile arms labs that didn't exist, and tried to discredit Wilson and silence other critics. This case is not about what they thought; it's about what they were willing to fake and cover up. They also had reliable information that 911 was coming and failed to react.

So the bi-partisan 9/11 commission said they found no intent to mislead, although there was a pre-disposition to believe that Saddam Hussein who had used WMDs had WMDs. They found not a single analyst who said they had been pressures to mislead. While Democrats on the committee have continued to pound the "Bush lied" message none to my knowledge have disavowed the report. So my question, Crazyhorse, is

- Did the Democrats knowingly sign a false report that our President had clearly committed impeachable offenses (which if what you say is true were) betraying their country for political expediency?

- Or did the Democrats knowing he had actually not falsified data in a complete and utter lack of ethics lie to their country for political gain?

Which was it? Why should we believe Democrats when they have to sign a document say Bush did not lie and when they give a campaign speach say he did?

crazyhorse1 wrote:Correction: Nearly everyone thought there was good reason to believe Saddam had WMD. As we now know Bush, the CIA, Cheney, other neocons at the top, and the arms inspectors were the exceptions. They knew there was no proof Saddam had WMD. That's why they deliberately distributed bogus photos, diagrams of mobile arms labs that didn't exist, and tried to discredit Wilson and silence other critics. This case is not about what they thought; it's about what they were willing to fake and cover up. They also had reliable information that 911 was coming and failed to react.

You and I have been down this road before. Of course there was no "proof" of WMD. We don't live in a world where we have the luxury of proof. We do however make our actions by looking at the behaviors of states. And Iraq was acting strange. Additonally, I've shown you the IAEA report stating that they suspected that Sadaam had WMD, just not nuclear. Should I find it again?

There was not intent to deceive, nor did Bush "lie" to get us to go to war. If you believe otherwise that is fine, but the burden of proof lies with you, and you have not been able to demonstrate convincingly that Bush, the pentagon, etc. intentionally deceived to get thier way.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:Correction: Nearly everyone thought there was good reason to believe Saddam had WMD. As we now know Bush, the CIA, Cheney, other neocons at the top, and the arms inspectors were the exceptions. They knew there was no proof Saddam had WMD. That's why they deliberately distributed bogus photos, diagrams of mobile arms labs that didn't exist, and tried to discredit Wilson and silence other critics. This case is not about what they thought; it's about what they were willing to fake and cover up. They also had reliable information that 911 was coming and failed to react.

So the bi-partisan 9/11 commission said they found no intent to mislead, although there was a pre-disposition to believe that Saddam Hussein who had used WMDs had WMDs. They found not a single analyst who said they had been pressures to mislead. While Democrats on the committee have continued to pound the "Bush lied" message none to my knowledge have disavowed the report. So my question, Crazyhorse, is

- Did the Democrats knowingly sign a false report that our President had clearly committed impeachable offenses (which if what you say is true were) betraying their country for political expediency?

- Or did the Democrats knowing he had actually not falsified data in a complete and utter lack of ethics lie to their country for political gain?

Which was it? Why should we believe Democrats when they have to sign a document say Bush did not lie and when they give a campaign speach say he did?

I am confused by the phrasing of your questions. The 911 Commission was cowed and intimidated by the President's support and apparent power
and turned itself into a fact-finding commission rather than one that determined guilt or innocence. It simply amassed data. Much of the data it amassed could and may be later used in an impeachment trial. It didn't exonerate the President for anything. Further, much information has come to light since the commission's report. To consider the matter the matter finally adjudicated by the commission is a total reach. The best that can be said by the President's defenders is that the commission backed off recommending an indictment at that time. Famously, it had the Bush administration absolutely cold in regard to ignoring 911 warnings. Rice's ludicrous characterization of an offical 911 warning as a "historical document" remains one of the most lame defenses of anything that I have ever heard. Surely, you remember.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:Correction: Nearly everyone thought there was good reason to believe Saddam had WMD. As we now know Bush, the CIA, Cheney, other neocons at the top, and the arms inspectors were the exceptions. They knew there was no proof Saddam had WMD. That's why they deliberately distributed bogus photos, diagrams of mobile arms labs that didn't exist, and tried to discredit Wilson and silence other critics. This case is not about what they thought; it's about what they were willing to fake and cover up. They also had reliable information that 911 was coming and failed to react.

So the bi-partisan 9/11 commission said they found no intent to mislead, although there was a pre-disposition to believe that Saddam Hussein who had used WMDs had WMDs. They found not a single analyst who said they had been pressures to mislead. While Democrats on the committee have continued to pound the "Bush lied" message none to my knowledge have disavowed the report. So my question, Crazyhorse, is

- Did the Democrats knowingly sign a false report that our President had clearly committed impeachable offenses (which if what you say is true were) betraying their country for political expediency?

- Or did the Democrats knowing he had actually not falsified data in a complete and utter lack of ethics lie to their country for political gain?

Which was it? Why should we believe Democrats when they have to sign a document say Bush did not lie and when they give a campaign speach say he did?

I am confused by the phrasing of your questions. The 911 Commission was cowed and intimidated by the President's support and apparent power
and turned itself into a fact-finding commission rather than one that determined guilt or innocence. It simply amassed data. Much of the data it amassed could and may be later used in an impeachment trial. It didn't exonerate the President for anything. Further, much information has come to light since the commission's report. To consider the matter finally put to rest by the commission is a total reach. The best that can be said by the President's defenders is that the commission backed off recommending an indictment at that time. Famously, it had the Bush administration absolutely cold in regard to ignoring 911 warnings. Rice's ludicrous characterization of an offical 911 warning as a "historical document" remains one of the most lame defenses of anything that I have ever heard. Surely, you remember.

crazyhorse1 wrote:It (9/11 Commission Report) simply amassed data.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm

Actually it goes on and on as to the causes, it is not just data, here's a link to the executive summary. With the contents of this report clearly they would have mentioned the falsification of data if that were found. And they were criminally corrupt to not mention it if they found it and didn't.

Can you show any data to Democrats who signed off on the report having disavowed the report as lies now?

The lie is that Democrats were deceived, two parties were up to their armpits in the cookie jar when mommy walked in and the Democrats stood back and pointed their bony blaming finger at the other, as if we are stupid.

Why don't you use your effort more productively by fighting to get out of the middle east entirely instead of fighting over the silly question of whether your party or the other is at the steering wheel while we drive off the cliff?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:It (9/11 Commission Report) simply amassed data.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm

Actually it goes on and on as to the causes, it is not just data, here's a link to the executive summary. With the contents of this report clearly they would have mentioned the falsification of data if that were found. And they were criminally corrupt to not mention it if they found it and didn't.

Can you show any data to Democrats who signed off on the report having disavowed the report as lies now?

The lie is that Democrats were deceived, two parties were up to their armpits in the cookie jar when mommy walked in and the Democrats stood back and pointed their bony blaming finger at the other, as if we are stupid.

Why don't you use your effort more productively by fighting to get out of the middle east entirely instead of fighting over the silly question of whether your party or the other is at the steering wheel while we drive off the cliff?

The key to getting us out now, as you also wish, is first to stop Bush from attacking Iran and then forcing him to pull out of Iraq, one way or another. By the way, the Middle East and much of the world considers the U.S., Turkey, and Israel to be the axis of evil and the primary threat to the stability of the region. There are excellent reasons for them to believe that, since the three countries are clearly allied and all three are super powers in the region. What would you do about that, if you were President?

crazyhorse1 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:It (9/11 Commission Report) simply amassed data.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm

Actually it goes on and on as to the causes, it is not just data, here's a link to the executive summary. With the contents of this report clearly they would have mentioned the falsification of data if that were found. And they were criminally corrupt to not mention it if they found it and didn't.

Can you show any data to Democrats who signed off on the report having disavowed the report as lies now?

The lie is that Democrats were deceived, two parties were up to their armpits in the cookie jar when mommy walked in and the Democrats stood back and pointed their bony blaming finger at the other, as if we are stupid.

Why don't you use your effort more productively by fighting to get out of the middle east entirely instead of fighting over the silly question of whether your party or the other is at the steering wheel while we drive off the cliff?

The key to getting us out now, as you also wish, is first to stop Bush from attacking Iran and then forcing him to pull out of Iraq, one way or another. By the way, the Middle East and much of the world considers the U.S., Turkey, and Israel to be the axis of evil and the primary threat to the stability of the region. There are excellent reasons for them to believe that, since the three countries are clearly allied and all three are super powers in the region. What would you do about that, if you were President?

I don't understand what you are asking me exactly.

Well, it's hard to understand why most of the middle east would consider a Jewish state, and a predominantly Islamic but secular state to be part of an axis of evil. And the US is always likely to be considered by them to be evil, all the time that it insists on interfering in their affairs.

Now, the US can go some way to remedying the situation by disengagement, as suggested by Kazoo. However, what could a secular Islamic nation do to redeem itself, except to embrace the medieval tendencies of a Sharia state? And what could the Jewish state do, but blow itself to kingdom come, saving their enlightened neighbours from the bother of having to do it themselves?

UK Skins Fan wrote:Well, it's hard to understand why most of the middle east would consider a Jewish state, and a predominantly Islamic but secular state to be part of an axis of evil. And the US is always likely to be considered by them to be evil, all the time that it insists on interfering in their affairs.

Now, the US can go some way to remedying the situation by disengagement, as suggested by Kazoo. However, what could a secular Islamic nation do to redeem itself, except to embrace the medieval tendencies of a Sharia state? And what could the Jewish state do, but blow itself to kingdom come, saving their enlightened neighbors from the bother of having to do it themselves?

Ironic is he picked the only really democratic countries (other then Iraq) in the region to be part of his "axis of evil." Interesting. Democracy is bad I guess.

If the question was what I would do about perception, then the answer is nothing. Our Constitution gives certain enumerated powers to the Federal governmnet and I dont' remember any that said "appease the ignorant left of the world so they like you."

Although if we followed my policy of not being in the Middle East maybe the international left would like us better. Probably not. Have you noticed how the more you do the left demands the more they hate you? It works internationally and for our own left. Bush appeases them all the time and it only makes them more angry.

Oh yeah! Prescription drug givaway my ass!!!!! Giving them what they ask for is like hitting a bee hive with a golf club. Though in reality as Crazyhorse demonstrates it's really the steering wheel they want. They really don't care where the car is going.

The world was perfect for us in the Treaty of Paris in 1919, we had nothing to do with the Middle East. You Brits and the French split it. You created Iraq and threw in Mosul (Kurds) just to put the oil region together. You were screwed, we were uninvolved. How did it happen we ended up sitting on the powder keg?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:Well, it's hard to understand why most of the middle east would consider a Jewish state, and a predominantly Islamic but secular state to be part of an axis of evil. And the US is always likely to be considered by them to be evil, all the time that it insists on interfering in their affairs.

Now, the US can go some way to remedying the situation by disengagement, as suggested by Kazoo. However, what could a secular Islamic nation do to redeem itself, except to embrace the medieval tendencies of a Sharia state? And what could the Jewish state do, but blow itself to kingdom come, saving their enlightened neighbors from the bother of having to do it themselves?

Ironic is he picked the only really democratic countries (other then Iraq) in the region to be part of his "axis of evil." Interesting. Democracy is bad I guess.

If the question was what I would do about perception, then the answer is nothing. Our Constitution gives certain enumerated powers to the Federal governmnet and I dont' remember any that said "appease the ignorant left of the world so they like you."

Although if we followed my policy of not being in the Middle East maybe the international left would like us better. Probably not. Have you noticed how the more you do the left demands the more they hate you? It works internationally and for our own left. Bush appeases them all the time and it only makes them more angry.

Oh yeah! Prescription drug givaway my ass!!!!! Giving them what they ask for is like hitting a bee hive with a golf club. Though in reality as Crazyhorse demonstrates it's really the steering wheel they want. They really don't care where the car is going.

The world was perfect for us in the Treaty of Paris in 1919, we had nothing to do with the Middle East. You Brits and the French split it. You created Iraq and threw in Mosul (Kurds) just to put the oil region together. You were screwed, we were uninvolved. How did it happen we ended up sitting on the powder keg?

To disengage from the Middle East in a meaningful way suggests that we stop backing Israel and Turkey. As long as we support those two countries we'll be regarded as interfering in Middle East affairs whether we withdraw from Iraq or not. I'm simply asking if, for Kazoo, withdrawing from the Middle East means to cease supplying Israel with armaments and stop cooperating with Turkey.

crazyhorse1 wrote:To disengage from the Middle East in a meaningful way suggests that we stop backing Israel and Turkey. As long as we support those two countries we'll be regarded as interfering in Middle East affairs whether we withdraw from Iraq or not. I'm simply asking if, for Kazoo, withdrawing from the Middle East means to cease supplying Israel with armaments and stop cooperating with Turkey.

Oooohhhhhh.

I told you I didn't understand exactly what you were asking me. That's a fair question. OK, to add some information, if I were President (and had a chance of hell of the members of either government loving party going along with me). I'm (sorry, I just realized we're not in smack and meant "heck" a second ago) answering more then your question, but i have to do that so you understand my answer in context.

> I would announce it is our objective to dismantle all US military bases in the world except for the US, the oceans and Cuba, Fucccccdge Castro (realized just in time we're not in smack). This plan would be in 3 phases:

- phase 1 would be bases we can close and begin returning home immediately because there is no military value to our presence, like Western Europe, Japan, etc.

- phase 2 would be identify countries we currently can't close until governments change, like South Korea and Cuba and eliminate them from now for consideration for closing.

- phase 3 would be to have the military prioritize the rest of the bases and create plans to close them and bring the troops home. The priority would be from safest left first to dangerious like the Middle East last. If we don't do it this way we look like we are "cutting and running." I know Democrats have their heart set on cutting and running, but I don't.

> I would change the military strategy from offensive to defensive and strategic attack. In other words, things like Navy Seals and some invasion capability, but not ability to take full wars to other countries. This would mean we would continue to develop the technology, just not the massive weapons, tanks, etc...

> I would end weapons sales to foreign countries. I would be open to the idea of "making money" by selling weapons, but I don't trust government to make money, they would figure out back door ways to give aid to our allies.

> I would end all foreign aid. Including Israel and Turkey. I am fine with people donating their own money to those countries, not with government confiscating money and giving it to them.

> I would kick the UN's assshhh tree (got it) out of NY and recommend we move it to Paris where it belongs. Basically the UN is a "base of operations" for spying and espionage, not a diplomatic mission.

> What I would not do is eliminate US diplomatic support for the world, but we would be partner with the Europeans and other democracies rather then always taking everything on ourselves.

That is the long answer, the short one is no, I would do nothing special from a government perspective for Israel or Turkey. But I would chip in some bucks from my tax savings from the tax cut since defense would be cheaper.

I would end all foreign aid.

I would kick the UN's assshhh tree (got it) out of NY

Brilliant.

ATV wrote:

I would end all foreign aid.

I would kick the UN's assshhh tree (got it) out of NY

Brilliant.

Actually more obvious.

crazyhorse1 wrote:as a Libertarian, I believe you should
greatly prefer the current Democratic Party to the Bush Administration. Note that I'm writing Bush Administration, not the Republican Party.

I was thinking about this and I wanted to comment that directly I do not believe either Bush or Democrats are libertarian at all. This part isn't "arguing" with what you said, just clarifying how I see it.

- Democrats basically believe the only freedoms which government should not be involved are the rights to get an abortion and swear on television.

- Bush's only freedom from government was reducing the tax burden, and even that was mitigated by raising tax complexity and an endless spending orgy.

So we really can't debate if Bush IS more or less libertarian then Democrats since basically neither are at all. It's like arguing if Stalin or Hitler believed more strongly in democracy.

What we can debate is as a libertarian who is the bigger direct threat to my liberty. Though again since both Bush and Demcrats are such a large threat to our liberty even there we can only argue that so much.

The other debate is protecting our lives, there is no life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness without life. But again there since both Bush and the Democrats want us all over the middle east meddling in other people's affairs making us a target of loonys in the endless quest for artificially cheap oil damaging our long term economy by preventing the marketplace from solving our energy issues again I'm not really seeing a distinction.

So remember in the end these are why I voted neither twice and I'm seeing no reason to think I should have done differently.

Democrats basically believe the only freedoms which government should not be involved are the rights to get an abortion and swear on television.

Rigghhhhhttttt.

The guberment's comin' to get us - Quick Mama, fetch the shotgoon! Yeee-haaaa!

ATV wrote:

Democrats basically believe the only freedoms which government should not be involved are the rights to get an abortion and swear on television.

Rigghhhhhttttt.

The guberment's comin' to get us - Quick Mama, fetch the shotgoon! Yeee-haaaa!

Debate by sarcasm, typical left argument. Very compelling.

Your comments are ridiculous. How else is a rational person supposed to take them? Sympathy? "Aww, poor guy, I guess this is what happens when the government dismantles it's mental health system. He probably has no place left to go or do". So, I chose humor over sadness.

ATV wrote:Your comments are ridiculous. How else is a rational person supposed to take them? Sympathy? "Aww, poor guy, I guess this is what happens when the government dismantles it's mental health system. He probably has no place left to go or do". So, I chose humor over sadness.

So is your post dumber because you took a post I made an extreme statement to draw a debate completely literally when I only meant it mostly literally or dumber because you still can't even refute an extreme statement with a rational argument?