It was about sex for those fuckers at Abu Graib. 
So he fucking lied under oath. If Bush lied about some Enron crap, I probably could care less. I do have a problem with starting a totally bullshit war that is breeding the very terrorists it’s supposed to eliminating. Only Bush has done that.
btw lets stop talking about Clinton. Fuck him, who cares, he’s the past.
It’s the worst case of inertia I’ve ever seen.
Since Republican voters seem to get stupider with every iteration, one can be heartened by the notion put forth by the thread title. Eventually, they will be.
Simply a matter of taking active, pre-emptive action. Clearly, in a wolf-rich environment, personal firepower and ordnance take on new meaning and importance. Naturally, pack animals seek out the weak and the slow, Darwinism favors the SUV driver, especially the one packing heat. The bones of the tofu-eating bicyclist will bleach in the sun, dotted with wolf scat.
Americans might revamp a popular Russian custom, carrying an elderly family member along for long family drives as a precautionary measure.
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
I think my anti-war credentials are rock-solid – as anyone who’s read my posts on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the bombing of Hiroshima knows. I was, and still am, against the war in Iraq.
I was in the protest here in Montreal – 20,00 people in far-below-zero weather – that helped convince my government not to get involved. If another protest were held today, I’d be in that, too.
But I’m not going to pretend Saddam’s not a monster, simply because I can’t agree with the war. My objection to this massacre dressed up an action movie was the brutality inflicted on civilians (and the violence released after the war), not the capture of the dictator.
I’d like to see Saddam turned over to an impartial court on charges of crimes against humanity. That’s not likely to happen, unfortunately.
In addition to the question of whether or not Hussein had which banned weapons, the question of what was the appropriate response to the supposed posession of said weapons. The case that the invasion was a necessary op[tion that couldn’t wait was purely a Team Bush iteration. Team Bush deserves full blame on that one. As well as the deliberately deceptive use of the term pre-emptive war to describe preventive war. There’re numerous incidences that demonstrate the practice to deceive on th epart of Team Bush et al.
An issue that is the heart of the invasion’s self-defense motif that to this day receives play is the assessment of the likelihood of Hussein initiating an attack (directly or by proxy) with these banned weapons. That Hussein had some banned weapons did not in itself justify the “quickly before it’s too late” aspect assigned to the invasion. The best estimates were that the threat of ‘national obliteration’ among other things was sufficient to keep the probability of Hussein launching such an attack low for the foreseeable future. This is all covered in this from DCI Tenet:
**DCI Tenet Declassifies Further Information on the Iraq Threat**
- October 7, 2002*
Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States.
** Senator Levin**: . . . If (Saddam) didn’t feel threatened, did not feel threatened, is it likely that he would initiate an attack using a weapon of mass destruction?
Senior Intelligence Witness: . . . My judgment would be that the probability of him initiating an attack–let me put a time frame on it–in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low.
Senator Levin: Now if he did initiate an attack you’ve . . . indicated he would probably attempt clandestine attacks against us . . .
“One thing is clear: the United States must approach regimes like North Korea resolutely and decisively. The Clinton administration has failed here, sometimes threatening to use force and then backing down, as it often has with Iraq. These regimes are living on borrowed time, so there need be no sense of panic about them. Rather, the first line of defense should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence --** if they do acquire WMD, their weapons will be unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national obliteration.**”
–Dr. Condoleeza Rice
As a running dog lackey, I myself am unconcerned about the arrival of my other cousins. You sheep, on the other hand, should be a little bit nervous. However, if you stick with me, no one gets hurt. I’ll protect the flock as a whole. This, of course, will call for sacrifices from individual flock members, but the flock as a whole will carry on.
Hey, if I have to take the stupidity of certain coworkers in consideration for picking material to train them, oughtn’t someone planning to lead the whole damn country be taking the lowest common denominator into account too? There’s a lot more at stake with people not understanding the would-be president’s ideology than not understanding me, after all…
Wacky idea, but I’d like a guy that wouldn’t take advantage of the LCD for evil. God forbid someone even wanted to try and raise their quality of life or something.
Iraq invasion?
Yes, it’s lovely, but it is not a slip.
OP started it.
The fate of all cliches is to dissolve into like-sounding expressions that are indistinguishable from the ones they replace and carry as little meaning.
Watch out for “constructivist decadence”, “recidivistic consonance”, “dualistic constructivism”, “dialogical conceptualism”, “dialectic pseudo-consonance”, and any and all combinations of the above.
Let’s not forget who’s primarily responsible for this ignorance: the “liberal” (snort) media.
Everyone knows who Scott Peterson is. How many know who Scott Ritter is?
Oh, just pretend Jon Stewart said it. And pretend he said it about some conservative. That way, you can laugh.