Right Wingers Are All Morons

[TNRighty]

I disagree with your view of Bush as an imperialist looking to remake the world in his own image. Those comments would be more accurately directed at Osama bin Laden. Bush is not trying to expand the American empire, he's protecting our freedom by bringing freedom and liberty to parts of the world that have never known it. He's not trying to remake Iraq into a Christian society. Sure, his faith inspires him, but he's not fighting this war in the name of Christianity. He's not on a mission to "convert the heathen", he's bringing freedom and liberty to people of all religions. He's not trying to gobble up Iraqi oil fields. He's giving that resource to the people it belongs to so they can use that resource to help build a strong nation with a strong economy. Aside from foremost benefiting the Iraqi people, will that also be an economic benefit to the USA and the rest of the world? Very good chance, but whats wrong with that? Its no doubt a heck-of a lot better use of that resource than Saddam using it to build lavish palaces and funneling bribes to UN and French diplomats all while leaving the citizens of his own country to wallow in unspeakable poverty and oppression.

[UncleVinny]

"Bush is not trying to expand the American empire, he's protecting our freedom by bringing freedom and liberty to parts of the world that have never known it."

Wow! I respect your intelligence, there, but have you been out of the county lately? Where did you get that, Sunday School? Suddenly, there's this great love for the Iraqi people? Images of Abu Graib popping into my head.

Know why Dick Cheney won't go public with the energy commission report? Because they were carving up the oil fields among their buddies 5 months before the invasion! Read "Price of Loyalty" by a Bush appointee - people like Ken Lay are making the energy policy for this nation under Bush.

Yeah, I can see your point - a good, honest, Christian person might justify ending the torture there, but that DOES fit conveniently in with the Wolfowitz pre-emptive war policy, doesn't it?

[TNRighty]

Abu Ghraib? Is that the best you've got? What next? Haliburton?

You must really feel cornered if you have to play the Abu Ghraib card. Those weren't the "Iraqi people" being held at Abu Ghraib. They didn't represent the Iraqi people. They were militant thugs and terrorists with American blood on their hands. Torture? Putting panties on their heads and making them stand on boxes for hours at a time? If those walls could talk, they'd laugh compared what to what went on there under Saddam. Humiliated? Probably. Beheaded? Gassed and thrown into mass graves by the thousands? Saddam was so much kinder.

It sounds like you think Iraq would be better off if Saddam was still there.

[UncleVinny]

You're right - I was off on a tangent.

Briefly - my beliefs: War might be justified SOMETIMES.
The Iraq threat did not rise to the level of emergency response needed to cross that threshold.
Bush LIED about the need to go in right away.
He deceived Americans by exagerating the threat and ranting on WMD.
Now, 1000 dead later, 6500 maimed later, he admits there's no WMD, and therefore no immediate threat.
So, he falls back on the lame arguement that 'The world is better off without Saddam." Lame, diversionary excuse.

Yeah, and the world would be better off if the Bush family owned Kuwait. Doesn't mean we go there.
The world would be better without Kim Il Sung.
Doesn't mean we go there.

In the past, you have a situation like N. Korea, you build an international consensus, establish a policy, like an embargo, or trade incentives. Same bush logic would have us bombing them tomorrow - which I think he would do if we didn't have our troops stretched to the max. The guy is a fox in the henhouse. (my apologies to foxes everywhere.)

[lordjulius7]

This was never about WMD. this is about terrorism. What is the chief cause of terrorism? The utter lack of democracy in the mniddle east. How to resolve this? Take out the worst guy in the region first. Establish a working democracy in Iraq. Then help insurgents in Syria in Iran, put pressure on gaddafi and Mubarak to reform and then, finally, we're ready to take down the house of Saud.
Admittedly, that's a best case scenario, though not an unrealistic one. But what's the worst? We've liberated a country from a loathsome dictator. Good enough, by itself. this is a win-win situation and only a completeky partisan left wing hack would claim otherwise.

[UncleVinny]

"This was never about WMD. this is about terrorism. "

Nice try, but no cigar.
If it was about terrorism we'd have all the troops now in Iraq scouring the hills of Afghanistan for OBL.
OR we'd be in N. Korea.
You've swallowed the party line, Juli.
Even people in Bush's own cabinet didn't see a need to go into Iraq. That's my whole point. He DECEIVED Americans into going to war there under the banner of terrorism. Saddam was Bad, but not a player in the terrorist game.
That lack of evidence for going to war should raise some red flag, suspicions that some other motiviation was/is at play. Well, look no further than Cheney and their oil buddies.

[lordjulius7]

Vinny, you're letting partisan hatred blind you. OBL should, for reasons of justice, be dead or on trial. But he is no longer a threat, providing we maintain our vigilance. Terrorism is a wider threat than one man. To defeat terrorism, we need to reform the middle east and Iraq is stage one.
As for NK, I agree, it needs dealing with. But it's obviously a trickier issue than just invading, due not just to their own missiles but because of their proximity to China.
And please, don't give me that 'party line' crap. dfisagree with me as much as you like, but my opinions are mine and mine alone.

[jailkerry]

UncleVinny said:

"This was never about WMD. this is about terrorism. "

Nice try, but no cigar.
If it was about terrorism we'd have all the troops now in Iraq scouring the hills of Afghanistan for OBL.
OR we'd be in N. Korea.
You've swallowed the party line, Juli.
Even people in Bush's own cabinet didn't see a need to go into Iraq. That's my whole point. He DECEIVED Americans into going to war there under the banner of terrorism. Saddam was Bad, but not a player in the terrorist game.
That lack of evidence for going to war should raise some red flag, suspicions that some other motiviation was/is at play. Well, look no further than Cheney and their oil buddies.

Why is it that the only thing we get out of libs is the same old Cheney and Haliburton" song and dance? Conveniently forgotton is that during the little excursion in the Balkans, Pres. Clinton also gave Haliburton a huge no-bid contract for work in the war zone. The simple fact of the matter is that Haliburton is one of the very few companies which can do the type of work required under the conditions of a war zone, therefore they have gotten preferential treatment in awarding contracts for some time. And yes, Dick Cheney did run Haliburton, but being a businessman should neither preclude a person from holding office, nor prevent that company from getting government contracts.
Have we also forgotten who made "regime change in Iraq" American Policy? Yep, the libs best buddy, Bill Clinton.
And as for the oft-repeated mantra that the 9-11 Commission said there was no link between al-qaeda and Saddam, that is a gross distortion. What the commission actually said is that the link between al-qeada and saddam TEXT at this time. BIG difference! Common sense and a careful study of history tells us that Saddam was involved in terrorism, on many levels.

[jailkerry]

oops tried to bold and underline...what it should have said is:
What the commission actually said is that the link between al-qeada and saddam cannot be proven at this time.

[scummybear]

Why is it that the only thing we get out of libs is the same old Cheney and Haliburton" song and dance?

Because that's the best they can do. This type of garbage is straight from the Michael Moore conspiracy series.

Still haven't seen any tangible evidence from UV, or anyone else for that matter, about any of these claims!

[UncleVinny]

Hope you guys can read . . .

Because in today's paper:

A report fron senator Bob Graham (FL) - how bush squashed an FBI investigation into reports of two Saudi agents helping the hijackers. Bush deleted the paragraphs detailing those connections from the 9/11 report. Bush family has very close ties to the Saudis, who have pumped billions of dollars into the bush oil empire. Smoke on that for a while.

Graham also reports general Tommy Franks told him that troops, and the search for Bin Ladin, were redeployed to Iraq in preparation for public announcements that shrub was going to invade there. This compromised the search for OBL.

I hope when Kerry is elected that they bring up treason charges agains Shrub! What a traitor!!

[jailkerry]

UncleVinny said:

Hope you guys can read . . .

Because in today's paper:

A report fron senator Bob Graham (FL) - how bush squashed an FBI investigation into reports of two Saudi agents helping the hijackers. Bush deleted the paragraphs detailing those connections from the 9/11 report. Bush family has very close ties to the Saudis, who have pumped billions of dollars into the bush oil empire. Smoke on that for a while.

Graham also reports general Tommy Franks told him that troops, and the search for Bin Ladin, were redeployed to Iraq in preparation for public announcements that shrub was going to invade there. This compromised the search for OBL.

I hope when Kerry is elected that they bring up treason charges agains Shrub! What a traitor!!

Again, for like the third time, what is your "source"...which paper? What is Mr. Grahm's political persuasion? And quit posting the same thing on every bb? I'm getting tired of answering

[UncleVinny]

Well that would be a Knight-Ridder report, not exactly a left wing bastion of propaganda.

Bob Graham is on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, not exactly a newbie to the field. He voted against going into Iraq, as he saw it as a diversion of resources searching for Bin Ladin

C'mon now, and get reasonable! You had some good, logical posts, but when your arguement starts to fall apart, suddenly to fall back to lame emotional outburts. I expected more of you. Take it like a man!

[jailkerry]

UncleVinny said:

Well that would be a Knight-Ridder report, not exactly a left wing bastion of propaganda.

Bob Graham is on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, not exactly a newbie to the field. He voted against going into Iraq, as he saw it as a diversion of resources searching for Bin Ladin

C'mon now, and get reasonable! You had some good, logical posts, but when your arguement starts to fall apart, suddenly to fall back to lame emotional outburts. I expected more of you. Take it like a man!

Thaks for the info on your source, but you still ducked the question on Mr. Grahams political leaning. Also isn't this the same senate intellegnce comitte out of which it has been recently learned that the Dems were planning on turning it into a partisan witch hunt for use during the current election?

And exactly where did I turn emotional? I was simply asking for a favor to save myself the time and effort to keep up with your posting of the same thing on multiple boards!

[UncleVinny]

OK, you're right, twern't you being emotional.

Yes, Mr. Graham is a Florida Democrat.

That doesn't negate my point.
I should point out, both he and Goss, the Bush appointee for the CIA BOTH opposed the deletion of those 27 pages from the 9/11 report that exposed the Saudi ties.

Members of BOTH Parties opposed the editing and censoring of the report to delete references to the Saudi agents.