Were taking out youre Nazi Rove and you can't stop us.

Aaron, you know, it is just that the left are so much more "intellectual" than conservatives. We couldn't possibly understand the nuances of why the muslims attacked us. The left outraged by Gitmo? You bet your booties. Fits right in with their hate America agenda. It's a given.

well, if your going to do exactly what you've been trying to do with Bush....

:Yawn:

Rove is an un-elected adviser to Bush... your outrage is like telling Bush who his friends can and can't be.

If Karl wants to name names, let him do so. The way I recall it, the whole country was united after 9-11. Hardly a voice was raised against the idea of going to war in Afghanistan and finding and killing or capturing Osama Bin Laden and his followers. Democrats and Republicans were together on this. Liberals and conservatives were together on this. Our collective blood was boiling. Forgetting this fact of recent history hurts Karl’s credibility, which would be greater if he personally had prepared for war and served in the military in his day. Karl appears to be a divider not a uniter. Both Republicans and Democrats are saying some things these days that are intemperate and regrettable. Blaming some Democrats does not excuse Rove.

"The fact is, you Democrats, you just hate that Karl Rove has you pegged, spot on. We conservatives saw the crumbling of the Twin Towers as an act war, and we supported the diligent response of our Republican administration. You Democrats saw the fall of Twin Towers, first as an act of war, but as soon as we sought retribution and went on the offensive, it was not war anymore. No, we had to understand why they attacked us. Democratic party leaders spoke out against the war on terror, seeking diplomacy with terrorists who would--without pause--strap bombs onto their own children for the sake of killing Americans."

Aaron, Keep thinking more distractions. Most Americans saw the attacks as an act of war. Most Americans supported the war in Afganistan.

Exactly which war are you discussing this time?

Maybe Lisa the intellectual time bomb may have an answer. Lisa you would do well on Family Feud. Good answer.....Goood answer!

Yes Aaron, Lies usally strike a nerve with most people, and those telling the lies feel the need to strikeback, much like a thief that's caught in the act.

Well ignorance is a right wing virtue, that and misplaced anger.

Dont really see where that equates to we hate America Lisa.

Karl Rove is a smart man and speaks the truth more than he should at times. This truly sounds like one of those times yet I haven’t read all of what he had to say so what do I know. But as far as firing the man as some have said on other Blogs today... COME ON… It’s not going to happen. He was not voted in by anyone. Only GW can fire him and that sure isn’t going to happen… NEVER!!!!!!

I agree with you AJ, that would be "W" firing his brain.

Lisa:

Rats and Progressives (Commies)just want to be French, I love gutlessness.

I love the the arguements of my few liberal friends, "I Feel this and I Feel that....", barf.

I ask them how would you Feel if some rag head drove a plane into your office and you did an eighty story header to become a blood spot on the ground, brains, guts and red stuff scattered in a splash mark on the ground?

Would you ask their heathen god for forgiveness, curse the US of A for being successful?

No, you would think of your family and the payback that the good old US of A was going to put on the heathens that caused this horror.

As old BJ said to Monica, I want to feel good, suck a little harder, Rove is correct.

Bill

Captain Ed has it nailed down.

MoveOn.org's petition less than 48 hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers

"We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of the United States of America and of countries around the world, appeal to the President of The United States, George W. Bush; to the NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson; to the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi; and to all leaders internationally to use

moderation and restraint

in responding to the recent terrorist attacks against the United States. We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction."

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), 10/1/01, Roll Call: "I truly believe if we had a Department of Peace, we could have seen [9/11] coming."

Al Sharpton, 12/1/02, New York Times, on the 9/11 attacks: "America is beginning to reap what it has sown."

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, 3/1/2003, Toledo Blade: "One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped cast off the British crown."

Senator Joe Biden, 10/22/01: ‘How much longer does the bombing campaign continue?’ Biden asked during an Oct. 22 speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. ‘We’re going to pay every single hour, every single day it continues.’ (Miles A. Pomper, "Building Anti-Terrorism Coalition Vaults Ahead Of Other Priorities," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/26/01, no link)

Senator Joe Biden, 10/22/01: “The Bombing Campaign, [Biden] Said, Reinforced Existing Stereotypes Of The United States As A ‘High-Tech Bully …’” (Ibid.)

Representative Dennis Kucinich, 9/30/01: Sitting In His Capitol Hill Office Last Week, Near A Window Where He Could See The Smoke Rising From The Pentagon On Sept. 11, Kucinich Insisted He Is More Optimistic Than Ever That People Worldwide Are Ready To Embrace The Cause Of Nonviolence.” ... “Afghanistan May Be An Incubator Of Terrorism But It Doesn’t Follow That We Bomb Afghanistan …” (Elizabeth Auster, “Offer The Hand Of Peace,” [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer, 9/30/01)

Senator John Kerry, 4/19/04: "I will use our military when necessary, but it is not primarily a military operation. It's an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort," he said. "And we're putting far more money into the war on the battlefield than we are into the war of ideas. We need to get it straight." (Washington Times, 4/19/04)

Like Ann Coulter says, "Talking to liberals is much more fun now that we have Lexis-Nexus."

"The fact is, you Democrats, you just hate that Karl Rove has you pegged, spot on. We conservatives saw the crumbling of the Twin Towers as an act war, and we supported the diligent response of our Republican administration. You Democrats saw the fall of Twin Towers, first as an act of war, but as soon as we sought retribution and went on the offensive, it was not war anymore. No, we had to understand why they attacked us. Democratic party leaders spoke out against the war on terror, seeking diplomacy with terrorists who would--without pause--strap bombs onto their own children for the sake of killing Americans."

Aaron, you have got to be fucking kidding me. Are you insane, or just a stupid partisan hack? It's gotta be one of the two.

1. Democrats were united in our action against the taliban in afghanastan.

2. Name ONE time where a democrat has spoken out against the war on terror.

3. The divide in our country appeared again when Bush decided to invade Iraq. Speaking out against the Iraq invasion is NOT speaking out against the war on terror, but how we go about fighting it.

4. SHOW ME ONE TIME where a democratic senator tried to open diplomatic ties with al qaeda, or and of its associated groups? Remember al qaeda and bin laden, that's who attacked us on 9/11.

FUCKING IDIOT (sorry, but this type of venamous, false rhetoric really pisses me the fuck off).

And yes, MJ, moderation and restraint was and still is needed in dealing with al qaeda, they are a fluid organization that cannot be pounded to death by bombs. Kerry (John) is exactly right in his quote about how to fight the war on terror. In fact, I believe Bush largely agreed with him on this point:

Senator John Kerry, 4/19/04: "I will use our military when necessary, but it is not primarily a military operation. It's an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort," he said.

And you know what, who fucking cares if people don't want to use instruments of war to bring those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks to justice. Many of you are religious, many probably were those WWJD braclets. Well, to be quite honest, jesus wouldn't have attacked afghanastan.

Rove and Bush run on morality and courting the religious right, then mock those who act in a way core christian values would lead you to act.

Again, idiots.

There you go, Tom, saying Jesus wouldn't have attacked Afghanistan....

Tom, .... I just don't know Tom. You're totally missing it again.

The purpose of all the above commentary and quotes isn't because democrats don't want to wage war (that's why Rove made the statement).

It is because many democrats now appear to be ticked off Rove said they don't want to wage war, and get even more pissed still when you point out the fact that many of them don't.

If you don't want to wage the war on terror in a military sense, fine. That's your opinion. Don't get pissed off because someone dared to actually come out and put it bluntly.

And what was so wrong with him saying just that? Certainly it's not true for ALL democrats. Certainly it IS true for MANY democrats. Is it not the man's job to argue his policy over his opponents policy? It's not like he called you nazi's, said you never worked a day in your life, said the only way you could fill a room up with black people is if they were hired help, called you a 'looser' or an 'idiot'.

You get very upset and loose site of the entire discussion, preportedly because of 'false, slanderous venemous rhetoric'.

But yet you say "1. Democrats were united in our action against the taliban in afghanastan. "

No, you weren't.

"2. Name ONE time where a democrat has spoken out against the war on terror."

I've allready named more then one and quoted them.

Yes, yes, we can play semantical games all day, let me anticipate your retort and address it early. NO ONE (save terrorists) supports terrorism. We all object to terror. But is it the 'war on terror' like the 'war on drugs'? That's how many democrats see it. And in that sense, they are against terror, yes, but they definetly don't support the 'war' part in any literal sense. Figgurative expressions don't count.

"And you know what, who fucking cares if people don't want to use instruments of war to bring those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks to justice. "

Well, anyone who wants to be informed about the differences in policy between the GOP and the Democrat party before voting should care.

And I think that's why so many people are suddenly so upset.

MJ, None of those quotes are speaking against the war on terror, no matter how you slice it. Try again. (and if you disagree, cite which quote and tell me how it's speaking against the war on terror.)

There may have been a few in the senate opposed to the war, but there always are. There was unprecedended bipartisan support of the afghan invasion. To sit here and saw not is rediculous. Give me a fucking break.

And I'm willing to bet nearly every american felt rage when those towers fell. But there's a difference between feeling rage and acting on it. Using what has come to be a sacred moment in American history for political purposes is beyond the pale.

I can't discussion right, too fucking pissed. i'll be back later.

"And you know what, who fucking cares if people don't want to use instruments of war to bring those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks to justice. "

MJ, THIS IS NOT THE PLATFORM OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, YOU FUCKING IDIOT. CHRIST! THEY WERE FOR THE INVASION OF AFGHANASTAN AND ARE FOR MILITARY ACTION WHEN NEEDED. DEMOCRATS WILL USE INSTRUMENTS OF WAR TO BRING TERRORISTS TO JUSTICE (SEE CLINTON ATTACKING BIN LADEN BEFORE THE ATTACKS).

god damn. keep spreading falsehoods, it's in keeping with your president.

Tom, as I allready said, nobody is supporting terror. All the quotes indeed show support for this thing, the 'war on terror'. But WHAT the 'war on terror' is, is in disagreement. Many of these quotes show senators such as Edwards and Kerry feel it is a 'war on terror' much like a 'war on drugs'. In that sense, they do not support literal war.

As far as it not being the platform of the democratic party, well, you ought tell Dean to mention that some time. I assure you I'm not the only one who sees your party this way. If it's an inaccurate view, the problem is not soley with me but very much in the message being sent by the party.

The democratic politicans need to stop saying things like "it doesn't follow that we bomb afghanistan" and "it is not primarily a military operation" and say things like "I AM FOR THE INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN AND I WILL USE INSTRUMENTS OF WAR TO BRING TERRORISTS TO JUSTICE!"

Get your next nominee for President to say that, and I'll have to change my mind. Until then, I have to go with what I see and hear, and I'm not the only one not hearing that from your party heads. If they are saying it, they're not doing a great political job of saying it and they need a new marketing department.

I didn't hear the word "Democrats" anywhere in Rove's "offending comments". I heard him speak of "conservatives" and "liberals." Are you Democrats now admitting that all Democrats are Liberals and that the two are interchangeable? I know several Democrats who would stronly disagree with you. Sounds to me like Karl Rove has unmasked the true liberals hiding in the Democratic Party by the response from those certain Democrats..er... I mean Liberals... ..er... I mean Democrats (Including the laughably new "centrist" Hillary Clinton).

Let's also not forget that we

You may not like liberals but the same taxes Ann "Big Nose Stringy Hair" Coulter pays for this shit is the same taxes Al Franksn pays. Thus everyone including Durbin and Rove have a right to their opinion. In my opinion, this war on terror is a complete fuck-up. Where the hell is Bin Laden? My sister served two years in Afghanistan and she told me about the lack of resources they had there because of DumbAss fighting 2 wars when he didn't have to. (DumbAss applies to any official dem or gop who let that happen) Who gives a damn about Saddam? We are no safer since Saddam was brought into custody than we were when he was running Iraq. In fact we are in a far worse position. Al Queda would never be in Iraq if it wasn't for the avenging cowboy "he tried to kill my daddy" you call a President.

Now unlike some of my liberal friends, I have no problem going to war but dammit let's do it smartly.

Mop Bin Laden, no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, less and less coalition of the willing and more and more American taxpayer cost.

By the way, Sharpton was right. As the second plane hit the trade center the immortal words of El Hajh Malik Al Shabbaz (MalcolmX) rang into my ears. ...Chickens coming home to roost

Thank you, Ward Churchill. We've booked you a speaking arrangement in Cuba. Here's your 1-way ticket.

In all fairness Lee, your opinion is not at all without merit. It is, however, completely uninformed.

The only cause you see coming from the Iraq war's event appears to be the fiscal cost of the war. There's simply much, much, much more to it then that.

Thing is I live in NY and know quite a few families involved in 9/11. NY being overhwelmingly Liberal and Democratic many are pissed off that W and crew exploit 9/11.

Especially the way they use 9/11 as a justification for the Iraq war.

You know the poorly thought out war based on lies.

Osama is still alive, Thanks W!

I worship Karl Rove!

Tulip Tommy, the war on terror is worldwide, not confined to one country (Afghanistan) or one raghead fucking goats in a cave (Bin Laden). This was made clear from day one but you simpering pansies conveniently forget that.

Rove will sweep all you turds next election. And the one after that. ANd so on...

-RR

ps. you're an idiot

pps. you're a fucking idiot.

RR,

Never said the war on terror was confinded to one country. But I do not think a military operation in Iraq was the right thing to do at that time. Still think so.

But, you best be running along, looks like your sister has some grubs she needs picked out of her fur. Lunchtime!

MJ,

The truth of the matter is democrats have always been for using the military in combating terrorism, when deemed necessary. You're right, this argument in not about fighting the war on terror or not, but on how to fight it.

No one has suggested getting therapy for terrosists as a way to fight the war on terror. That... is ... rediculous.

People have, and correctly, in my estimation, said we need to understand why these people did this to not only aid us in winning the battle against them, but to help make sure something like this doesn't happen again.

It's like the old saying, those who do not know the past are doomed to repeat it. I'm not saying blame on America, but there were things that happened that led to the formation of al qaeda. I would think it wise to figure out what those were. Not to change our foriegn policy to cater to terrorists, but to know what their mindset it and what consequences our past actions may have had.

But, back to Rove, it's rhetoric like he spouted off yesterday that skews the truth of things. No, he didn't use the word democrat, but if a Democratic operative were to attack conservatives, would you honestly not equate that to attack republicans?

Rove's a douche bag frat boy.

Tom you do a good job, but....

Ya can't argue with an idiot, ya just can't!

Ya can't argue with an idiot, ya just can't!

That's why we usually pass you right by Short Bus™ Boy.

Now try to walk on your hinds legs.

The way I recall it, the whole country was united after 9-11. Hardly a voice was raised against the idea of going to war in Afghanistan and finding and killing or capturing Osama Bin Laden and his followers.

The way you recall it ignores the front-page coverage of rather large protests before and for at least a year after the invasion of Afghanistan (starting ion 10/14/01 in Boston and going on weekly with thousands in attendance) calling for a pussy solution of understaaaaaaaaaanding how the U.S. was at fault and how going to war was not the manner to deal with the terrorist threat.......which were certainly NOT united with the rest of us that were. Whether or not some want to admit it, there's a very vocal group of leftists, mostly in the entertainment industry and on college campuses (and Teddy "Mary Jo" Kennedy who has never supported the war on terror, not even in Afghanistan....at least not after day one of the invasion...he was calling it a quagmire by the end of 11/01), that is and has never been united with those that were. I'm not talking Democrats and Republicans...but a very specific group of liberals (and Teddy "the murderer" Kennedy) that has never supported America's actions.

I see "Slo Mo" finally woke up.

Absurdity. Rove's remarks are almost entirely without merit to anyone not wearing NeoCon-colored glasses. I expect no apology from him, however. Unlike Durbin, who actually considered his remarks and then apologized (however weak you think it was), Rove has no such ethical fortitude. Let's not waste our time expecting anything approaching decency from the likes of him.

Absurdity. Rove's remarks are almost entirely without merit to anyone not wearing NeoCon-colored glasses. I expect no apology from him, however. Unlike Durbin, who actually considered his remarks and then apologized (however weak you think it was), Rove has no such ethical fortitude. Let's not waste our time expecting anything approaching decency from the likes of him..

The way you recall it ignores the front-page coverage of rather large protests before

From what I remember they werent all that large.

Maybe by the standards of FR....

But nothing compared to say the protests you saw in Iraq.

Some people felt that bombing the fuck out of Afghanistan wasnt going to solve anything, and considering Al Qaeda and Osama still exist their view is more valid than your Saddam/WMD meme.

From what I remember they werent all that large.

Well, your memory is faulty as everryone knows. Hundreds of thousands in Washington DC, NYC, Boston, Detroit, SF........EVERY WEEK for almost a year.

Well gee...good to see that you think we just "bombed the fuck" out of Afghanistan. How ignorant of you... What's that...4 red herrings?

good to see that you think we just "bombed the fuck" out of Afghanistan

How many civilians died?

Hundreds of thousands in Washington DC, NYC, Boston, Detroit, SF........EVERY WEEK for almost a year.

Post 9/11 about Afghanistan?

Cant say it rings a bell.

I remember a few, but never that large.

Scum:

Hundreds of thousands, my ass, I counter protested every commie gathering in Boston from 10/14/2001, WWP, the massive crowd seemed to disappear as time went on.

I was in DC as a counter protestor, you scum inflate your numbers, as I remember the Buses are Coming, the Buses are Coming, get fucking real.

As old Karl said, you are the dustbin of history.

Bill

You remember incorrectly....after 9/11 and starting before Afghanistan...continuing until the fall of '02. Hundreds of thousands, in all of the major liberal cities countrywide......and they're still protesting it to this day, just in smaller pathetic numbers than the past.

You gotta HAVE bells in order for them to be rung.

Sarg:

I remember 5K at Copley and maybe 10K in March 2003 at the hight, even in DC the numbers were over blown or so it seemed.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Bill

I remember 5K at Copley and maybe 10K in March 2003 at the hight, even in DC the numbers were over blown or so it seemed.

How is that 100k?

So Tiny is calling Sarge a liar.

Or they going to blame them Evvvvillll Liberuls like they always do.

Yeah, Rove should apologize. Just like Durbin did. Something like, "If I upset anyone with my remarks, I'm very sorry. I didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings." He could even say, "I never meant to imply that Democrats were wimpy peaceniks, and I hope that the Democrats--who I know to be cold-hearted, cruel warmongers--will forgive me if I gave that impression. Some of my best friends are Democrats."

Something like that.

The attack on the Twin Towers were an act of war! You're absolutely right about that. But it's normal to go after the one who attacked you. What you did - and it's becoming clearer every day - is attack a country which had nothing to do with 9-11. Your invasion of Iraq was wrong. Your president and people like Karl Rove now wage a full scale propaganda war to cover up their mistake. The latest in all this is the presidents claim that "Americans are fortunate to have drawn terrorists into a fight on somebody else's soil". CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT?? Was that the reason to go to war? To start a war somewhere and draw terrorist to it? At first it wasn't. We've had the weapons of mass destruction (they lied to us about those), than Saddam supposedly had ties to Bin Laden (they lied to us about that too), the Iraqi's would welcome US troops (they lied about that as well), lies, lies and lies. One the most stunning ones came from Cheney recently when he said: "the insurgency in Iraq is in it's last throes". Typical Vietnam speak! You should not have started this war, it has no connection to the war on terror. In fact nowadays it has a connection, but you've created that connection yourself. Before your invasion there were NO terrorist there. You've created them. That's disgusting! But I guess everything you do is okay. You were sent by God to change the world and you know best how to do that. I am just a foolish Dutch guy who doesn't know anything about making this world better. You have to be a right wing American fundamentalist to understand that. Good luck fucking things up you nitwits!

Before your invasion there were NO terrorist there.

It looks like Tim's in the last throes of his rabies/syphilis/AIDS dementia. Yes, Mike Moore idyllic picture of Iraqi kids flying kites all day WAS PERFECTLY TRUE!

I am just a foolish Dutch guy

You are being superflous again. Just stay away from our pretty blond girls (what a culture - a judge and his son arrested for raping and killing a teenage girl - Aruba)

So Tiny is calling Sarge a liar.

No, dumbshit...LB's going off of ONE city (Boston) or ONE protest at a time....when I clearly said hundreds of thousands in major cities COUNTRYWIDE (not even including the large quarterly ones in DC or NYC)......dumbass...learn to comprehend. ...and those protesting WERE "eeeeeeevil libruls"...check out the IAC's website to see who they are.....evil anti-American libruls.

Timmy.....by your logic, we never should've freed Europe. Germany never attacked us afterall, and was no direct threat to the U.S...yet there we were for the second time in 20 years saving your asses from something that didn't involve us and was no threat to us.

Before your invasion there were NO terrorist there.

Just say that 100 times....maybe then it might be more true in your head. Sorry to burst your pathetic anti-American bubble....but there WERE plenty of terrorists in Iraq before we went in, you just choose to ignore 'em to fulfill yoiuir anti-American views. Yes, you ARE just a foolish Dutchy that doesn't know how to make the world a better place because you've never actually tried DOING something. Reading anti-American bullshit and passing it off onto little kids isn't making the world a better place. Why don't you go to the Sudan or some equally squalid country and try to feed the people? Hope you make it through a day there, which you won't....now go make some chocolate for me.

when I clearly said hundreds of thousands in major cities COUNTRYWIDE

Bullshit.

At the very least I never saw it.

Germany never attacked us afterall

They declared war on us, all official and everything but you knew that.

Bullshit.

Says you...my actual words say otherwise. I never said hundreds of thousands in each city dumbass. Try reading comprehension for a change.

They declared war...so what? Saddam declared war numerous times as we were the Great Satan...big deal....and he had a knack of actually attacking other countries without declaration of war. Of course YOU knew that.

They declared war...so what?

Ok we are done here, you lose.

Saddam declared war numerous times....we ARE done here...YOU LOSE....whimper your way back to the DU.

Saddam declared war numerous times.

Where? Official?

Germany had an official declaration of war.

Call me old fashioned but that differs from how we conducted ourselves in Iraq, remember we struck pre emptively.

we ARE done here And you still lost.

Saddam has openly declared war with the Great Satan. If you noticed...he never really "officially" declared war on ANY of the countries he has gone to war with...setting the precedent. Dumbass. Off to the DU with you.

Saddam has openly declared war with the Great Satan.

Where?

Because we initiated this war Marge, try to keep up.

Sarge you don't deserve a decent discussion. It's like Um Yeah said, Germany declared war on you. If you don't even know that, you are really dumb. They definitely were a real threat to you and that's the only reason you came to Europe; to neutralize that threat. You didn't came over to save my grandparents from the nazi's. You like to think so dumb boy, but that's just one of the lies you believe in.

I will explain to you what a fact means. A fact is something you can't deny. It really happened and it was recorded. People agree on it. It is a FACT Germany declared war on you. It is a FACT you needed to elimate that threat (before it got to big). It is a FACT Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. It is a FACT your government lied about the weapons of mass destruction and now tries to sell this war in other ways to the public. It is a FACT there were no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion (Saddam would have seen them as threat to his position). Even your president agrees with that because he makes it very clear "you draw terrorists to Iraq" meaning they were not there before. Call me anti-American all you want brainless piece of garbage, but I am beginning to believe you are anti-American yourself. You must really hate your countrymen to support a war in which so many of them die because a few politicians made terrible mistakes.

How are these for facts, Tim:

It is a fact that Saddam had WMD at some point in time because he gassed his people with them.

It is also a fact that, at some point, he had a nuclear weapons program, verified by satellite images.

It is a fact that a colmun of Russian trucks was observed crossing the border into Syria in the waning days of the war in 2003.

It is a fact that the U.N. had no interest in seeing Saddam be forced from power because they were making too much money helping him thwart oil for food. Likewise for the French, Russians and Germans.

It is a fact that, had they wanted to, they hadn't been in Iraq with their "weapons inspectors" since they were kicked out in 1998.

Even if they were in Iraq inspected weapons, it is a fact that expecting to find something after you first announce you're going to be somewhere, give the Iraqis time to move weapons, then march toward the inspection in a column of white UN vehicles, you can't expect to find anything.

It is a fact that there were 18 resolutions imploring Saddam to cooperate with the UN and the international community that Saddam ignored.

If you want facts, I've got 'em. You libs just choose to ignore them.

It is a fact that, had they wanted to, they hadn't been in Iraq with their "weapons inspectors" since they were kicked out in 1998.

There were inspectors there post 98, right up until the war in fact.

There was no evidence that Saddam had weapons when the war began. And none now.

Thats the only fact worth knowing.

Steve, we were discussing facts. So I'll give you some more facts to think about.

Saddam was a BIG friend of the US when you still could use him. That means it is a FACT you sold him weapons without even critizing him a bit. It is also a FACT you didn't care so much about the Kurds and the Shia when they were killed by Saddam's men. You started "caring" after Saddam became a danger for your interests. That's what the CIA calls a "blowback". However you were right about one thing. He used to have WMD, but didn't have them anymore for years.

The Israeli's bombed the Iraqi nuclear plant in 1981 which delayed the nuclear programm a lot. They didn't have nukes at any point in history. BTW your ally Israel has hundreds of them. Why aren't you saying anything about that?

It might be a fact a few trucks crossed the border with Syria, but it is very clear it is NOT a FACT that Syria is now the proud owner or keeper of the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as you obviously imply.

It is a pity the oil for food programm lead to corruption, but it's very clear the French, Russians, and Brits were not the only ones making provits. In fact a lot of American companies earned money from this programm. The British member of parlement Galloway had to come over to the US and prove his innocence while he was only blamed for earning a lousy 300.000 dollars of the oil for food programm (which he didn't even earn). While a Texas based oil company earned 42 million dollars. Anyway we had to do something. The oil for food programm was a necessity, because the US sanctions were so tough, hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children were dying for lack of food and medicine (yeah. you really care about the Iraqi people. I know for a FACT you don't Steve. I just know it for a FACT!!).

The reason why the UN inspectors couldn't find WMD in Iraq is because they weren't there and your government knew that.

If ignoring US resolutions is a criterium to be attacked you should have attacked Israel a million times. There so many UN resolutions demanding an Israeli withdraw from the occupied terrorities, but Israel puts up a middle finger and Uncle Sam stands behind in the shadow with fists up, challenging everbody that even comes close to Israel. That's right. Justice is not on your side, so stop trying to look honest and decent. You lie, deceive, manipulate and create hatred. You make me sick!

You're welcome to hit me with some more of your facts.I want them and I you say you have to them. So come on, don't hesitate Stevie.

"It is a FACT that you needed to eliminate that threat before it got too big"

Or what? Needed to, in order for what? You see Tim, this is why you don't understand the difference between FACT and OPINION. And THAT is what makes you a moonbat.

We didn't need to eliminate the Soviet Union. We needed to fight Japan, or sacrifice our presence in the Pacific, that is true. But not so with Germany. Who is to say we could not have fought a 50 year Cold War with Hitler? At the time of the war, Hitler did not possess the ability to make any major strike across the Atlantic.

So, now that we've established it as a FACT that you don't know the difference between FACT and OPINION, sit down, shut up, and play with your action figgures. Children are to be seen and not heard.

MJ go back to school you nitwit. Germany actually attacked you. You had NO choice but to eliminate the Nazi threat. GO BACK TO SCHOOL YOU DUMB RIGHT WING LOOSER!!!!!!!! Never try to look intelligent ever again with me, because you have proven to me you are not. Where did you get your education?

That's right! They flew all the way from Germany to the South Pacific in their Zeros and bombed Pearl Harbor. Bönn-zai!

What don't you understand about 'did not possess the ability to make any major strike across the Atlantic' ?

You going to tell me there was a column of Tigers in Quebec? Germany did not possess the ability to bomb or invade the US. We didn't possess the ability to bomb or invade europe either, had Britian fallen, we would have had to fight through North Africa to Italy, and early on we were getting our asses kicked in North Africa.

It's entirely possible we could have -not- entered the war in Europe, fought with Japan and just ignored Hitler.

Sarge you don't deserve a decent discussion It's like Um Yeah said

Oh my God talk about self parody. Scream that someone is not decent and then align yourself with DUmmy in the same sentence. I've thought Tim-Tim was a right winger jerking our chain for some time and this trumps it. The cartoonish angst, bile and foolishness is perfectly displayed by this two dimensional charicature.

The gig is up but keep it up - very entertaining.

MJ, I lost my temper a bit. I apologize and I am sincere about it. However you are wrong. For two reasons. The first one being Germany did do a lot of damage to US shiping in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. They also put commandoteams on the beaches. Second, it was obvious Germany was developing all kinds of weapons, one of them being a long distance bomber of whom Hitler dreamed it could bomb New York. It is obvious if Nazi Germany wasn't stopped, there would have been a real danger Hitler would have attacked the US sooner or later. Because it didn't happen we can take it as a fact, but judging from the nature of nazism/facism that was a very good possibility. A risk your government (thank God for that) didn't take.

MJ Hitler delcared war on us, we had allies who need ed help anyway, there was really no choice but to go to war.

"You going to tell me there was a column of Tigers in Quebec? Germany did not possess the ability to bomb or invade the US. We didn't possess the ability to bomb or invade europe either, had Britian fallen, we would have had to fight through North Africa to Italy, and early on we were getting our asses kicked in North Africa."

You fishing for answers, or really this stupid?

There is allways a choice to go to war. The cost of not going to war may well be higher then going to war, but there's allways a choice.

And there was a fair bit of Americans who never did want to enter WWII, yet ANOTHER war in Europe, that was none of the US's business.

Hitler may have attacked the US but that doesn't mean we need to invade Germany. Vietnam never invaded America yet won the war. Afghanistan never invaded Russia, yet won that war. It's called a 'defensive war', it happens alot.

It's entirely plausible that we could fought off Hitler's advances indefinetly, until he gave up, or until the technology increased sufficiently to make such long strikes, which happened in about 10 or 15 years. But at that time, MAD was created, and it's silly to assume the political evironment would not change but stay static as technology evolved in those 10-15 years.

We didn't have to invade Germany.

We especially didn't have to PUSH for Germany, we could have made it to France and stopped, saved some US soldiers and let the Soviets overrun Belgium.

We could have done the same with the Japanese as well, IF we were willing to loose all the Pacific islands from Japan to Hawaii, and allow Japanese zero's within striking range of the California coast. In the end, we didn't like that option for either. Roosevelt was no wimp.

The fact of the matter is that your 'fact' is no fact. In fact, it is a fallacy. We did not, and no one ever does 'have' to actively do anything. Whether or not a thing is inevitable, what the cost would have been, what may or may not have happened had history not turned out like history, it is all hypothetical speculation we arguably no absolute truths or fallacies. It didn't happen that way, so no one can ever say with any degree of certainty what would have happened had it gone like 'what if'.

You've made your mind up about everything. It just so happens, coincidentally, that everything you beleive about the US is the story that casts it in the worst light, 100% of the time. Big coincidence, isn't it?

As far as "Nazi commando's" on the beach, I assume you're refering to the (was there 9?) spies Hitler sent over to sabotage US industrial plants. In case you didn't notice, they were all hung by the neck until dead before that happened.

Russ, you outdo yourself. Even Tim and Um Yeah make a more substantial objection then that.

There were inspectors there post 98, right up until the war in fact.

It's a FACT that UNMOVIC inspectors left in '98 and returned at the end of '02. Time to do a fact check.

Tim stated "attacked", he didn't say "invaded". The US resisted until the U-boat sank the ?? and I will leave the rest up to you to figure out...

MJ, it isn't me who is guilty of "what if" history. I just judge the situation as it was at the time, just like your government did at THAT particular time. They didn't know in 1940 within only two decades they would develope weapons that could destroy entire cities and missiles that could carry such weapons over thousands of miles. They knew only a few important things. 1 - Nazi Germany was a threat that had to be dealt with. The US was attacked by the Nazi's and it was obvious if Hitler would not have been stopped he would have continued his war of agression. He had to be stopped. 2 - If you would not have invaded Europe the Soviets (communism) would have been much stronger and the Soviet Union might have conquered all of Europe. As it turned out Soviet communism was probably a bigger threat to US interest and the US government at the time acknowledged that.

Your point is stupid and I hope you realize that. I agree there is always a choice to go to war or do something in a certain situation. Just like when somebody rapes your wife, burns your house down and kills your children. You have the choice to do nothing, or perhaps make a few remarks ("hey you stop that") or you can try to stop the guy. But let's be honest; is that really a choice? Sometimes it's obvious what you have to do. The position in which your government found itself after Pearl Harbor, faced with two dangerous enemies (Germany and Japan) and a powerful potential enemy after WWII (Soviet Union) they basically didn't have a choice. They did what had to be done, but the main reason was not to save the poor Europeans or Asians from facism. This was about the survival of the United States of America (not at that particular time, but in the future).

I have not made up my mind about everything as you say. In fact, what I dislike about you MJ is that you seem to have made up your mind about everything. Just like your assumption I only judge every US action negative. I don't, on the contrary. That only has to do with the issues we discuss here (Iraq, Vietnam, Cold War politics etc.). I have told you a million times I am not anti-American, I have been to your country often and I have a lot of friends there.

My point's only stupid if you miss it entirely, Tim. Which you did quite well.

If I could cut and paste highlighted statement's I'd fisk you, but since I have to take the whole paragraph at once it's just not worth the effort.

"Not worth the effort" - You're trully a quasi intellectual, aren't you MJ? You're a looser. Your point was stupid. I didn't miss it at all. It was very clear. In fact it was as clear as my response to it. That's the reason you're not able to make any more points. You realize I am right.

If that's what you need to tell yourself to fall asleep at night.

I find myself with some spare time. Here's to hoping it actually indents properly.

"MJ, it isn't me who is guilty of "what if" history. I just judge the situation as it was at the time, just like your government did at THAT particular time."

What they 'did' has nothing to do with what they 'had' to do. I DID just pour a cup of coffee. THAT is what happened at THAT particular time of 5 minutes ago. I did'nt have to do it though.

"They didn't know in 1940 within only two decades they would develope weapons that could destroy entire cities and missiles that could carry such weapons over thousands of miles."

I thought you said you understood my point? That's exactly what I said. Why do agree with me with objectionary language? No, they did not know that. They only knew what the fact of the present was, and that was that Hitler could not successfully launch an invasion on US soil, nor bomb or strike with missiles with the current technology.

"They knew only a few important things. 1 - Nazi Germany was a threat that had to be dealt with."

Nazi Germany was a threat. If you say it 'had' to be dealt with, in some sense yes. All stimulus life forces upon us must be responded to in some sense, even if our response is catatonic, it is still a response. That doesn't mean they had to invade Germany. You don't listen, do you? Defensive war?

"The US was attacked by the Nazi's and it was obvious if Hitler would not have been stopped he would have continued his war of agression."

He certainly would have continued his war of aggression, but it is not so certain his war of aggression would have ever been successfully aggressive against the US. Again, doesn't mean we 'had' to do anything. Defensive war? Heard of it? We don't 'have' to save Europe from itself, you know. We choose/chose to.

"He had to be stopped."

Repeating the same nonsense thesis over and over again does not strengthen it, logically it means nothing unless your aim is to propogandize.

" 2 - If you would not have invaded Europe the Soviets (communism) would have been much stronger and the Soviet Union might have conquered all of Europe. "

So? I thought you just said "it isn't me who is guilty of "what if" history". That ASSUMES the Soviets would have beaten Hitler to begin with. Besides, it's also redundant. If the Soviets hadn't won and we hadn't invaded Europe, the Hitler would have controlled it all. Same boat.

"As it turned out Soviet communism was probably a bigger threat to US interest and the US government at the time acknowledged that. "

As it turns out, yes. More 'what if' history though? Much like what war technology the next 15 years would bring, they didn't know about the Cold War yet.

"Your point is stupid and I hope you realize that. I agree there is always a choice to go to war or do something in a certain situation. Just like when somebody rapes your wife, burns your house down and kills your children. You have the choice to do nothing, or perhaps make a few remarks ("hey you stop that") or you can try to stop the guy."

But, if they guy runs away, do you chase him? Do you think that's quite as clear - cut? MUST you give chase? Yes, you must respond in some matter. But MUST we have invaded Germany? Well...MUST you chase the man who burned down your house into shadowy alleys? Or might some decide to let him run, and try to douse the flames instead?

"But let's be honest; is that really a choice?"

Yes, it is. Watch it happen to 5 people, see them do 5 different things.

"Sometimes it's obvious what you have to do. "

To achieve any given goal, or desired effect, sometimes it is obvious what that will require, yes. But what your goal or desired effect is, and whether (once you know what must be done to achieve it) it is still worth it, is for you to decide.

"The position in which your government found itself after Pearl Harbor, faced with two dangerous enemies (Germany and Japan)"

keep going.....

"and a powerful potential enemy after WWII (Soviet Union) "

There. Stop. More 'what if' history you 'aren't' guilty of? Potential enemies after the war aren't relevant. But we allready covered that. Again, you can't say with certainly Hitler would have been defeated, nor can you claim that the Soviets would have been a compelling reason if a Nazi europe itself would not have been.

"they basically didn't have a choice. They did what had to be done"

More repitition? Goes nowhere. Allow me to repeat myself as well: Defensive war against Hitler.

", but the main reason was not to save the poor Europeans or Asians from facism. "

It was one of many reasons. Whether or not it was the 'main' reason depends on who your talking about. America isn't some guy, it's actually few hundred million guys. A few hundred thousand of which were willing to die to stop Hitler.

"This was about the survival of the United States of America (not at that particular time, but in the future). "

More visions of the future courtesy of Roosevelt's Magic 8 Ball? Again, Tim? Like the bomb technology and the assumption Roosevelt also knew before hand that Stalin would defeat Hitler even 'if' America had never invaded Europe?

"I have not made up my mind about everything as you say. In fact, what I dislike about you MJ is that you seem to have made up your mind about everything."

No, what you don't like about me is I'm not a flaming leftist who agrees with all your anti-american relativist crap.

" Just like your assumption I only judge every US action negative. I don't, on the contrary. That only has to do with the issues we discuss here (Iraq, Vietnam, Cold War politics etc.)."

Well, I can only judge you but what I see of you. If you're only 'anti-american' in regards to the issues discussed here, it comes as a surprise I should see you as 'anti-american'? Newflash Tim, I only care what you're talking about, on these topics, here. What you're doing when you're not posting here, I have no clue nor curiosity.

" I have told you a million times I am not anti-American, I have been to your country often and I have a lot of friends there. "

That doesn't mean jack to me. There's plenty of anti-american Americans for you to be buddies with. Moonbats and multiculturalists and Islamists and tyrant-appeasers and the like. The idea you have, that you understand America just because you've spent a few vacations here and watch American TV, is ridiculous and only furthers my point that you beleive what you want. I don't claim to understand life in Norfolk just because I watch the BBC, seen "Are you Being Served?" and a couple of monty Python movies and know people in London. You, tim, you've got us all figgured out though, clever you.