Check your PM in a moment.
Check your PM in a moment.
First, back in 1998, the big threat was that Saddam was going to acquire WMDs and biological weapons. At that time, the UN sanctions were still in effect, weapons inspectors were still in Iraq and were still getting the access they requested, and nobody found any WMDs or biological weapons. I find it a bit amusing that those who have criticized Clinton for blowing up an aspirin factory based on bad intelligence are now saying that there was a credible threat in Iraq at that time that would have required intervention.
Next, in 2002, the only evidence for WMDs or biological weapons in Iraq was the word of the Bush administration. Any democrats who said there was did so based on the word of Bush & Co. Remember, this was happening almost exactly 1 year after 9/11, and right before a mid-term election. Anyone who disagreed with the administration on this would have been shooting themselves in the foot and would have hurt their party right before an election.
Third, if Iraq had WMDs or biological weapons, where did they go? Why haven't we found them in the last 6 years?
If you haven't heard about him, you might want to look up Scott Ridder - Marine and chief UN Weapons Inspector from 1991 - 1998. Audio U-tube
It's amazing people have completely forgot the 8 years of Clinton/Gore telling the world, on almost a daily basis, that Saddam had WMDs. Completely amazing. Talk about having your head buried in the sand. Again, I will repeat... I have to be one of the only persons left on this planet who has actually retained a memory of the past.
and here's the classic...
Last edited by js; 10-13-2008 at 12:38 AM.
"bing bang boom! hair out...hamburger time" - William Murderface
No js, you aren't the only one that remembers. But the mainstream media has buried such footage to perpetuate the myth that GW and the evil and omni powerful Dick Cheney are the only ones to blame. But to keep it simple and with fewer words, Cheney is dropped. That way, the mindless hordes of liberal sheeple can remember the four words to the liberal battle cry: Bush lied - people died.
But the real problem here is the impotence of facts as they pertain to most liberals. See most people are empowered by facts. Facts are kinda like Superman. But liberal spin and revisionism is like kryptonite. And Superman is no match for kryptonite.
Most liberals already have their minds made up about things. They don't like to be bothered or confused with facts.
the tip of the iceberg has just been seen
most of us have not felt it yet
get ready for a real cold 5 years to recover
i am thinking the DJIA will bottom at 7,000
Wait, is "open minded liberal" an oxymoron?
Anyways, if I listen to you I'm afraid you'll water down my posts to where it'll be just like "bla bla bla". Where would be the fun in that?
But you are right of course. Liberals don't have an exclusive paten on being closed minded. They have just perfected it to an art form. How else could you explain Barack Obama?
I was just having that very same conversation with a friend I've known for more than 40 years (we met in college).
He remembered that his father had taught him that a "Liberal" was a person with a mind that was open to new ideas. I remember that my own parents told me essentially the same thing.
My, how definitions, and attitudes, change!
I would blame it on the '60s and '70s, and recreational drugs, but I was indulging myself in that way at that time, and it didn't close my mind.
After a lot of thought, I have come to the conclusion that recreational-drug use was only one of the symptoms of the problem that caused the closed minds of the Hippie generation. I believe that the real cause is the normal convinced egocentrism and self-indulgence of 'teen-age, without the moderating influence of parental discipline and control.
Parents of the Hippie generation's kids were, for the most part, WW2 survivors who had pledged themselves to give their children a better life in a better world. It is our great misfortune that the "better life" was seen as an unfettered and uncontrolled one, and that the "better world" was the one their kids were going to create in that condition of absolute freedom.
What a mistake!
Well if you go purely by these definitions then I'm a liberal:
Favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
Favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
Of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
Free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
Open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
But if you just go by this - http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal - then I am not. I agree with some of those.....but disagree with many.
I guess, Fred, that we have to remember the difference between a "liberal" and a "Liberal."
The dictionary definitions you found fit "liberal." It's a term describing a particular philosophy and outlook.
The definitions on Conservapedia fit "Liberal." It's a term that describes a political position, usually one that's set in concrete.
Now, maybe, we should also look at "Conservative."
Are you saying that:
1. Clinton's air strikes on Iraq based on (as of yet in this thread) undisputed evidence that Saddam was attempting to construct WMDs and biological weapons is the equivalent of Bush's 6+ year ground war that was based on shaky evidence of existing weapons stockpiles and laboratories (both mobile and fixed) that haven't been found even though we turned the country inside out looking for said weapons and labs?
2. Clinton the draft dodger did something correct militarily?
3. All that "Wag the Dog" talk coming form the Republican right during the last part of the 90's was incorrect and uncalled for, and that it was just a coincidence that Bill's Monica Lewinsky "troubles" happened to coincide with a truly dangerous escalation of Saddam's power?
I think "normal" is now on extended hiatus.
Bill Clinton & Al Gore (including all Democrat leadership) said for 8 years that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States...and that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and would use them...as he already had before. Clinton bombed Iraq almost weekly...via "no fly zones"
George Bush II & Dick Cheney said for 2 years that...Hussein was a threat to the United States...and that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and would use them...as he already had before. (now insert 3,000 dead Americans from 9/11) Now a threat from Saddam, a threat that 2 administrations said was real... Bush acted on the threat using the same intelligence from the 8 years before he was president.
Me personally, I strongly supported invading Iraq... because of the pure shit that Clinton & Gore filled my head with, not from anything the Bush administration said.
Our war footing with Iraq began in 1992... not 2002.
you really need to watch the video below... it shows the true colors of Democrats. It's a shame... It's also a shame that 95% of Democrats today are just as stupid. Of course, they support someone like Obama... that just says it all. Democrats support killing terrorist and their supporters, yet they will put someone in the white house with direct ties (personal and business) to a domestic terrorist and who is today.... proud to admit it. Pure hypocrisy...
Last edited by js; 10-15-2008 at 02:19 AM.
"bing bang boom! hair out...hamburger time" - William Murderface
Again, in 1998, Clinton's air strikes were used "to prevent Iraq form acquiring" WMDs and biological weapons.
Bush's protracted ground war was "justified" by faulty intelligence that Iraq WAS IN POSSESSION OF WMDs and biological weapons.
Where did these WMDs and biological weapons go? And why weren't they found? Or were we lied to because Bush & Co. wouldn't have gotten any support for an invasion without phonying up their intelligence.
Since we're making up statistics and calling names, 4 out of 5 Republicans smell like poop!It's also a shame that 95% of Democrats today are just as stupid.
I for the life of me just don't quite understand why there are so many democrats "Liberals" on this site? Anyone voting for Obama are inviting an infringement on their 2nd amendment rights, and the truth is they will deserve it.
The only thing I can think of is that unknown to the administration here, there must be a link to this site at the Daily Kos and/or Move ON.
Remember back when McCain took a (figurative) dump on the families of the Vietnam POW and MIAs? McCain used to be against torturing enemy combatants, he rolled over for Bush on that one. McCain used to stand up to the religious right (America's Taliban), now he's in bed with them.
While I won't vote for Obama, I'm glad it looks like he will keep McCain from getting the Oval Office.