Our hearts reach out to those in Baghdad...

krusadr · Jul 13, 2005

and having to endure the Americans who financially and morally supported the IRA.

It seems every other east coaster gets all misty eyed at the very mention of the 'emerald isle' but few have ever been there or ever will.

Now all of a sudden since 9/11 the Americans seem to be gushing left right and center about bombings.

When the UK was experiencing having regular tragedies like this the US president was shaking hands with the IRA leaders.

Does America consider Ireland as good allies? They hopped right into bed with the French and Germans over Europe. They adopted the Euro and now they are puppets to their European masters. The UK has steadfastly stood with the US over so many issues in the last century.

I'd like to hear an apology from our US friends over their disgracefull support of terrorist bombers in the UK in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

As they say, perspective is everything isn't it?

--

'Silence! What is all this insolence? You will find yourself in gladiator school vewy quickly with wotten behaviour like that.'

adamM · Jul 13, 2005

Hey Kenneth,

If the US dislikes Saddam so much for killing people:

Kenneth Margulies said:
Kenneth Margulies said:

i said he hates muslims to make the point that to sit by why saddam has killed thousands for years and believe that words would change the situation is a tremendous disrespect for life--muslim life.

Click to expand...

They why did the USA rent him the helicopters to gas those people?

You seem like a bright guy, but do some research before you tout yourself as one who's knowledgeable. Your voicings are coming across as pro-US passion, but not from a place of logic or with any understanding of what's happening

--
cheers,
adamM
(gear in profile)

BobHaverford · Jul 13, 2005

Thank you - a voice of reason - THANKS!

Chato · Jul 13, 2005

Kenneth Margulies said:
Hi Chato,
you are right in that iwas partly responding to another post.
between you, zig, atomic and peter, i ahve my hands full.

Yes, and I appreciate the above statment. I was figuring on posting that you're an unredeemed fanatic - but a fanatic never makes any concessions.

Kenneth Margulies said:
i actually agree with many of your conclusions and recommendations.
i may be a bit more aggressive in defending ourselve--i do believe
in a preemptive strike after the 9/11 experience. i am curious
about whether the report of our drawing down troops in iraq
starting in 2006 will be accurate.

I doubt if it's true. The assumption would be that the "war" is running down and therefore we can leave.

we should do our best to set

Kenneth Margulies said:
them up, but in the end, it is up to the iraqis to build their
future.

As best I can tell - we have already lost the war. All the goals will not be met. The Bush administration has finally figured this out and is trying to save face, as best they can and at the expense of American lives. Ultimately, whether we leave now or ten years from now, there will be a civil war between the Sunni's and the Shites.

just hope the suicide bomber subscribe to the view that

Kenneth Margulies said:
once we leave, there is no reason to blow up chldren (like the 24
killed today)....as if there ever was an excuse.

The suicied bombers couldn't care less what we say. They don't care about what liberals say, they don't care what conservatives say. All of us are irredeamably evil and are all going to hell - where we belong. That's their attitude. Here I am referring to Al Qaeda and its affiliates.

They are GLAD that we are in Iraq. Nothing could please them more. They prayed that we would go, and they predicted that we would go. It would have been a major blow to them if we hadn't of gone. The only one worse to them than us, was Sadaam Huesein. He was worse BECAUSE he was an Arab. They were at war with him and one of the reasons they could never work together was because of this ongoing war.

Since this is a psychological war (with the exception of Aftghanistan) it has to be won on that level. In other words, the worst thing you can do is fight using Al Qaeda's script.

I innitially thought that George Bush was wrong, and that he read the intelligence to find what he wanted to believe. Recent developments show he was not wrong - He planned this, and planning commenced even BEFORE the election.

You post that everyone believed in WMD's. This is news to most of the world....

We live with a media, that is both sensationalist and CONSERVATIVE. If it wasn't conservative, they would have ripped the entire WMD thing apart. It's easy calling all foreign sources "leftist rags," but in that sense you are calling otherwise conservative foreign media "leftist rags."

The media has given George Bush a bye, on his most serious crimes. Lying to Congress to get the equivalnece of a declaration of war is treason. No one seems to care.

Pre-emptive war? Against whom. Surely you recognise that even a preemptive strike must be against someone who is a threat?

One of the conclusions of the Duefler Report (A PDF easily googled) is that Sadaam Huesein DID want to reconstitute his army and weapons - for use agaisnt Iran. That report written by an extreme Neocon, stated that Sadaam NEVER intended to attack us.

He's hardly a liberal...

Why do you feel that the US Constitution is such a trivial document? It has served us so well when we were fighting for our very existance. Now it should be jetisoned because of some crazed terorrists? And yes, they can kill some or even MANY of us, but are not a "threat" to our existance, or a threat to ALL our lives as the Germans and Japanese were?

dave

Kenneth Margulies · Jul 13, 2005

Hi Adam,

we may have rented him helocopters, but we certainly did not envision he would use them to gas his own people. your sentence as written may imply we knew he would do that beforehand.

as i have said, we changed our policy toward iraq. you should be happy we woke up and realized that it was wrong to deal with saddam.

i am pro-us to the extent that i think people who slander the usa and think its intentions are evil are wrong. i disagree with some of my countries policies--what american doesn't?

some on this site have even argued that it is wrong for the us to work against nuclear proliferation--if the usa has nukes, why can't north korea and iran? their extremism is such that they support proliferation and see no difference between governments. they are blinded by hatred of the us--note i did not say bush as others have argued the usa has never had an acceptable foreign policy.
ciao~

adamM said:
If the US dislikes Saddam so much for killing people:

adamM said:

adamM said:

i said he hates muslims to make the point that to sit by why saddam has killed thousands for years and believe that words would change the situation is a tremendous disrespect for life--muslim life.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

They why did the USA rent him the helicopters to gas those people?

You seem like a bright guy, but do some research before you tout
yourself as one who's knowledgeable. Your voicings are coming
across as pro-US passion, but not from a place of logic or with any
understanding of what's happening

--
cheers,
adamM
(gear in profile)

Kenneth Margulies · Jul 13, 2005

100,000 deaths? nonsense! but if you can do it, why not me?
saddams' removal saved 3 million lives.

middle eastern countries did not advocate saddam's removal? i literally saw dancing in the streets in kuwait. those countries could not advocate his removal prior to the war as he was a threat. remeber, we used those countries terroritories to invade iraq. explain that. EXPLAIN THAT! how does that jibe with they view saddam as no threat!
USA supports terrorism and evil regimes?
i suggest that you are so blinded by hatred for the us you are not rational.

as i have mentioned before, what countries past is without mistakes? the overwhelming majority of us policy is honorable.
and may i ask what "pure" and "flawless" country are you from?

[U] sojourner said:
Kenneth Margulies said:

sorry, i thought i did answer your question.

Click to expand...

Where? I must've missed it.

_sojourner said:

if a counjtry invades another to free its people and allow
democracy, it is a good thing.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that democracy can be imposed on a people. It has
to come naturally. And anyway, are you talking about American style
"democracy"? Because if you are, that certainly leaves a lot to be
desired, doesn't it:
http://www.citypages.com/databank/26/1264/article12985.asp

_sojourner said:

(like **** germany, bosnia) if they
invade to impose a totalitarian government, it is evil.

Click to expand...

Certainly, but what about, as Bush said, invading any country that
harbors terrorists? This is a good thing, isn't it?

_sojourner said:

now answer my questions:
what country is without sin and has never acted in its own national
interest?

Click to expand...

A country can act in its own interest, ie. protecting its people,
without giving support, (in the case of America, worldwide
support), to brutal dictators.

_sojourner said:

why do you condemn are throwing out saddam

Click to expand...

I thought I made it clear that I have objected to invading Iraq as
the means of dealing with the problem. A means which has resulted
in the loss of over 100,000 innocent lives.

_sojourner said:

yet condemn us for
supporting "some of the world's worst human rights offenders"? are
you adovcating we overthrow other regimes?

Click to expand...

I'm certainly advocating stopping supporting them.

_sojourner said:

what are your policies to eliminate terrorism and totalitrian
regimes besides "stop supporting them."

Click to expand...

Besides? Come on now, that's the commonsense starting point. That's
like asking, 'how can we help a battered wife?" - well, we can
start by getting the husband to stop battering her.

There can be no doubt that an easy way to reduce terrorism is to
stop participating in it. America should stop fostering it, close
down the terrorist traning camp in Fort Benning, Georgia. It should
stop vetoing humanitarian resolutions in the UN. Admit that US
foreign policy has been the cause of so much worldwide suffering.
That's a good place to start and to work from. I don't think
that'll happen though, at least not under the present government.

_sojourner said:

saddam survived for a long time
under un condemnation.

Click to expand...

It's interesting to note that Kuwait and Iran, two countries that
were actually invaded by Iraq, were not calling for the overthrow
of Saddam like the US was. Why not? Because they knew that he
wasn't much of a threat. Even the head of Israeli military
intelligence, in 2002, and they watch Iraq pretty closely, admitted
that, at the time, Saddam posed no nuclear threat to the region.

_sojourner said:

you hate america

Click to expand...

I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards.

_sojourner said:

and only see evil where none exists.

Click to expand...

Is it not evil to wage a war based on lies?

_sojourner said:

you are too
biased to be objective.

Click to expand...

No, the burden of proof lies on those who advocate violence. And
when that proof could not be found, then it had to be manufactured:
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html

--
Ian Shanahan

[/U]

Kenneth Margulies · Jul 13, 2005

sorry this is long, but it is morning here...

me, a fanatic?-- i hardly think so (but if i were, would i be able to tell? ha ha). i just dislike people who think the usa is evil and all its policies are evil. i have disagreements with the current administration on several issues. but there are posters who dislike not just current us policy, but all usa policy since the country's founding. there are even posters who dislike our attempts at nuclear arms control. they say if the usa has nukes, why not iran and north korea? this is how absurd some posters are when it comes to hatred of the us--even anti-proliferation efforts are a usa plot.

not all overseas rags are rightist--the one cited (the guardian) is on the left. finding a pro-us article is like finding an anti-business one is the WSJ. the new york times' judy miller supported the contention there were WMD in iraq, yet her paper's editorial page runs one anti-administration screed after another (some i agree with, but the NYT can only play anti-bush tunes).

we lost the war? maybe, but we ain't done yet! we did get saddam, have elections (did that move you at all?) and hopefully, in the time we have left, we can set up a decent government. but it will be up to the iraqis to pull it together. a shia/sunni civil war? well, one way to avoid that is to put saddam like figure and his minority in control and have him subjugate the majority in a most brutal fashion. but the usa does not do that. it has been pushing for an inclusive government. it may fail...who knows? but rather than tsk tsk from the sidelines, offer a solution.

now, as for the us constitution--i believe in it 100% (though i have concerns with the interpretation of the second amendment). a lot of people believe in it. but you say bush committed treason! objectively, that is a view held by more of the bush hating fringe than the average person, even in the opposition party. even you admit your views have no traction. this, to me, is fringe. like those who despised clinton--fringe.

terrorists may kill some or even many of us? major problem! the muslim radicals have mixed religion and politics (gee, perhaps even more than bush?) and have called for a holy war on the west. lets get them, and since they are streaming into iraq to fight us, lets get the job done there.

BobHaverford · Jul 13, 2005

with such wisdom the USA and world would be a better place.

The Left always resorts to claims that perfection must be achieved in every aspect of foreign relations as they define perfection as a prerequisite for any action Obviouslly that will never be achieved.

Chato · Jul 13, 2005

Kenneth Margulies said:
sorry this is long, but it is morning here...
me, a fanatic?-- i hardly think so (but if i were, would i be able
to tell? ha ha).

No, I posted that I was glad to see you were NOT a fanatic...

You have to read these things before you reply....

Kenneth Margulies said:
not all overseas rags are rightist--the one cited (the guardian) is
on the left. finding a pro-us article is like finding an
anti-business one is the WSJ. the new york times' judy miller
supported the contention there were WMD in iraq, yet her paper's
editorial page runs one anti-administration screed after another

And they gave Front Page coverage to every single one of her articles, and even the courtesy of misleading headlines.

Kenneth Margulies said:
(some i agree with, but the NYT can only play anti-bush tunes).
we lost the war? maybe, but we ain't done yet! we did get saddam,

Tis an ill wind indeed that blows no one any good.

Of course I woulsd not risk MY life in Iraq, not even to get rid of Sadaam, and I would not ask ANY American to do what I was not willing to do. Strangely enough I WOULD risk my life fighting Al Qaeda, and would EXPECT any American to be willing to do the same.

Kenneth Margulies said:
have elections (did that move you at all?) and hopefully, in the
time we have left, we can set up a decent government.

"We." Always a revealing statement.

Kenneth Margulies said:
but it will
be up to the iraqis to pull it together. a shia/sunni civil war?
well, one way to avoid that is to put saddam like figure and his
minority in control and have him subjugate the majority in a most
brutal fashion. but the usa does not do that.

We have installed MANY brutal dictators. In fact, Sadaam wouldn't even be around without our aid.

Kenneth Margulies said:
now, as for the us constitution--i believe in it 100% (though i
have concerns with the interpretation of the second amendment).

I am in favor ofn the RIGHT to bear arms. If one reads the words and intent of the founding fathers - that's what they meant. What most annoys me is not that some people are for gun control - rather that they wish to abrogate the Constitution with a mere law, instead of amending it. Then of course these same people will complain about otyhers violating the Constitution with a mere law.

But you are doing the same below.

Kenneth Margulies said:
a
lot of people believe in it. but you say bush committed treason!
objectively, that is a view held by more of the bush hating fringe
than the average person, even in the opposition party. even you
admit your views have no traction.

The Constitution is quite clear on this issue. Congress has the sole right to commit us to war. Certainly, as the COmmander in Chief of the armed forces the President has the right and OBLIGATION to temporarily defend us in the event of attack - Then he MUST go to Congress. The facts show, NOT that Bush was wrong, but that he deliberately lied. This is treason, a high crime and misdemenor. He should be impeached. That is the objective evidence. There's far to much out there for you to post cliches at me.

I agree, up until I read the British cabinet minutes I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. I thought he was just a twisted ideological fool - I was wrong - he commited treason. Rove is guilty of treason by outing the head of a CIA department, a woman who "owned" companies in Iran and other places. No, she has not personally been endangered - but all those who worked for her are, and and entire intelligence activity has been jeopordised, all for some cheap political points. Disgusting...

Kenneth Margulies said:
this, to me, is fringe. like
those who despised clinton--fringe.
terrorists may kill some or even many of us? major problem! the
muslim radicals have mixed religion and politics (gee, perhaps even
more than bush?) and have called for a holy war on the west. lets
get them, and since they are streaming into iraq to fight us, lets
get the job done there.

Since, we are fighting the "expendables," people whom one might say are designed to die and become martyrs - what are you talking about? They seek death, because twenty will replace each one that we kill. THAT IS their plan. You don't get it, and you don't see high crimes and misdemenors when it stares you in the face.

You complain about liberals violating the Constitution, and then dismiss violating the Constitution as a "fringe position."

You're NOT thinking.

dave

Kenneth Margulies · Jul 13, 2005

Chato said:
No, I posted that I was glad to see you were NOT a fanatic...

You have to read these things before you reply....

ok....got me on that one.

Chato said:
snip
And they gave Front Page coverage to every single one of her
articles, and even the courtesy of misleading headlines.

of course. she, like many others, were convinced saddam had the weapons. nice to have a newspaper with a variety of opions. the nyt edotirials, however, play only an anti-bush tune.

Chato said:
Chato said:

(some i agree with, but the NYT can only play anti-bush tunes).
we lost the war? maybe, but we ain't done yet! we did get saddam,

Click to expand...

Tis an ill wind indeed that blows no one any good.

Of course I would not risk MY life in Iraq, not even to get rid of
Sadaam, and I would not ask ANY American to do what I was not
willing to do. Strangely enough I WOULD risk my life fighting Al
Qaeda, and would EXPECT any American to be willing to do the same.

well, to be blunt, you are not doing the asking. many conflicts in our past would not pass the "dave" test of "would i fight for that cause." like the "ask a mother whether iraq was worth the life of her son" argument. the answer would be "no." but most mothers would answer "no" for even wwII. what mother would sacrifice a son willingly for any cause? (one exception is the mothers of suicide bomber who praise their sons sacrifice--i see this as cultures having very different values and perhaps cultural pressures to say such things.

Chato said:
Chato said:

have elections (did that move you at all?) and hopefully, in the
time we have left, we can set up a decent government.

Click to expand...

"We." Always a revealing statement.

and the elections??? the iraqi wish and desire to vote?
no comment on that? very revealing!!!!

by we, i mean the usa. if we fail, then hopefully the iraqis, or the un??? can do it...

Chato said:
snip>
We have installed MANY brutal dictators. In fact, Sadaam wouldn't
even be around without our aid.

but we are not in iraq. why the guilt, mate? what country is without sin? we are trying to set up an inclusive democracy, and you say we used to support "MANY" brutal dictatorships (especially during the cold war). uh-huh. so we have changed policies. we encourages democracy in taiwan, korea, and enforced it on germany and japan. and so when we try to do the right thing in iraq, you say "but the usa did bad things before, wah! wah!" you should say, "thank goodness we are not supporting a tinhorn dictator like roosevelt did in the past."

Chato said:
I am in favor ofn the RIGHT to bear arms. If one reads the words
and intent of the founding fathers - that's what they meant.

with SINGLE SHOT MUSKETS!!!!!
What

Chato said:
most annoys me is not that some people are for gun control - rather
that they wish to abrogate the Constitution with a mere law,
instead of amending it. Then of course these same people will
complain about otyhers violating the Constitution with a mere law.

snip impeachment/treason

if your point was so clear, where are the calls for impeachment? are democrats idiots? political cowards?

Chato said:
snip rove

if rove did what is alleged, he should go. your point is well taken.

Chato said:
Chato said:

this, to me, is fringe. like
those who despised clinton--fringe.
terrorists may kill some or even many of us? major problem! the
muslim radicals have mixed religion and politics (gee, perhaps even
more than bush?) and have called for a holy war on the west. lets
get them, and since they are streaming into iraq to fight us, lets
get the job done there.

Click to expand...

Since, we are fighting the "expendables," people whom one might say
are designed to die and become martyrs - what are you talking
about? They seek death, because twenty will replace each one that
we kill. THAT IS their plan. You don't get it, and you don't see
high crimes and misdemenors when it stares you in the face.

my point on high crimes is above. you a so "out there" in your thinking that your usual cohorts won't even join you.

i also don't believe that there are many willing to be suicide bombers. your "one killed and twenty replacing him" is terrorist propaganda, but lets assume it true, and if you believe another poster's comments about 100,000 iraqi's killed so far by us troops, we sure killed a lot of suicide bombers! maybe when the 2 million arrive as replacements, we can nuke 'em???

Chato said:
You complain about liberals violating the Constitution, and then
dismiss violating the Constitution as a "fringe position."

You're NOT thinking.

ouch!

well, never claimed i was a deep thinker. clearly you consider yourself one. but remember, although you didn't convince me of anything and i did not convince you, you are writing on one of the most influential sites for political thought...
ciao,
ken

krusadr · Jul 13, 2005

David Hughes said:
Hi Keith,
I can't recall saying it was "carried out in the name of
Christianity". I merely pointed out that Christians and Muslims are
pretty warlike when it comes to it. And that a lot of wars have
involved Christian nations fighting other Christian nations.

One of these days people will read about the Ten Commandments and
turning the other cheek and respond in a Christian way to calls for
war but it hasn't happened yet.

[snip]

No. Hopefully one of these days people will realise that all religion is evil and stupid and will start to appreciate their life and their world for what it REALLY is and not what ncient superstition says it is.

Maybe then the sensless killing will end. When people realise that the 'afterlife' is a childrens fairytale and we all need to get along in THIS LIFE short as it is.

To talk of the victory of christianity over islam is as retartded as any argument I've ever heard.

All religion is cr4p. Grow up little children and take responsibility for your life, your childrens lives and the precious and fragile world we live in.

Religion really is the folly of mankind! Isn't the defining attribute of humankind over animals the ability to reason and be self aware? How does religously following thousand year old dogma fit into that definition?

--

'Silence! What is all this insolence? You will find yourself in gladiator school vewy quickly with wotten behaviour like that.'

Kenneth Margulies · Jul 13, 2005

you mean after they martyr themselves, the suicide bombers will not get to have their 72 virgins? this is a key motivating factor for young men.

: )

_sojourner · Jul 14, 2005

Kenneth Margulies said:
100,000 deaths? nonsense!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html

Kenneth Margulies said:
but if you can do it, why not me?
saddams' removal saved 3 million lives.

But no, you cannot do it now, can you?

Kenneth Margulies said:
middle eastern countries did not advocate saddam's removal?

Firstly, don't take me out of context. I said, "Kuwait and Iran, two countries that were actually invaded by Iraq, were not calling for the overthrow of Saddam like the US was." The key phrase being, "like the US was". Now do I have to spell that out?

Kenneth Margulies said:
i literally saw dancing in the streets in kuwait.

I'm not saying that weren't pleased to see him go.

Kenneth Margulies said:
those countries
could not advocate his removal prior to the war as he was a threat.
remeber, we used those countries terroritories to invade iraq.
explain that. EXPLAIN THAT! how does that jibe with they view
saddam as no threat!

Secondly, and this should've been clear from the context, "no threat=no significant threat". They knew that Iraq's military never recovered from defeat in the Gulf War and was in no shape to fight wars of aggression.

They would've also been aware of what Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice said, which I quoted earlier, and which you seem to be ignoring:

"[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq." - Colin Powell, February 2001

"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." - Condoleeza Rice, July 2001

Kenneth Margulies said:
USA supports terrorism and evil regimes?

How many times do I have to say this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,583254,00.html
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm?Page=Article&ID=1237
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1484631,00.html

What is the only nation in the world to have been found guilty by the World Court of supporting international terrorism?

The United States:
http://www.virtual-institute.de/de/wcd/wcd.cfm?dec0102.cfm

http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/Contras

Kenneth Margulies said:
i suggest that you are so blinded by hatred for the us you are not
rational.

You keep on accusing me of hatred of the USA but you won't answer my question:

Kenneth Margulies said:
Kenneth Margulies said:

Kenneth Margulies said:

and only see evil where none exists.

Click to expand...

Is it not evil to wage a war based on lies?

Click to expand...

Answer please.

Kenneth Margulies said:
what countries past is without mistakes?

So therefore we should ignore present day violations of international law?

Kenneth Margulies said:
the overwhelming majority of us policy is honorable.

If you believe that then there is a bridge in Manhatten that I would like to sell you.

And answer this please:

Kenneth Margulies said:
Kenneth Margulies said:

And anyway, are you talking about American style
"democracy"? Because if you are, that certainly leaves a lot to be
desired, doesn't it:
http://www.citypages.com/databank/26/1264/article12985.asp

Click to expand...

And this:

Kenneth Margulies said:
Kenneth Margulies said:

Certainly, but what about, as Bush said, invading any country that
harbors terrorists? This is a good thing, isn't it?

Click to expand...

--
Ian Shanahan

_sojourner · Jul 14, 2005

Kenneth Margulies said:
if your point was so clear, where are the calls for impeachment?
are democrats idiots? political cowards?

http://www.rawstory.com/aexternal/conyers_iraq_letter_502

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/conyers_downing_street_letter_rumsfeld_529

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/06/int05023.html

--
Ian Shanahan

BobHaverford · Jul 14, 2005

of Leftists - he actually seeks the truth. And for that he has been tossed aside by the Left. The odious Left's only concern is that the corrupt and impotent UN be involved. What utter poppycock.

You Leftists on the board - read Hitchens.

BobHaverford · Jul 14, 2005

The Left and their handmaidens are impervious to the blandishments of reason. They deserve only our ridicule. Reason will NEVER convince them.

BobHaverford · Jul 14, 2005

Kenneth Margulies said:
are democrats idiots? political cowards?

Yes!!

Kenneth Margulies said:
if rove did what is alleged, he should go. your point is well taken.

Of course Rove did nothing wrong. The facts, which are being distorted and twisted by the Left, speak for themselves. The Left will grab at any straw to discredit Bush.

The Left is depending on the bovine ignorance of the masses in creating an issue out of whole cloth.

BobHaverford · Jul 14, 2005

and am pleased to say that I did not run into a single whistle-brained gaseous galoot. You must have been out of the country.

Kenneth Margulies · Jul 14, 2005

hi sojourner,
calls for impeachment, i said. you give links to calls for an investigation.
keep digging. i am sure you can get one or two loonies.
and that will prove my point.

it may be true someday, but right now, such calls for impeachment are from the fringe.
keep excusing the terrorists--what a point of view you have.
did you take a moment to remember the innocent british killed today?

[U] sojourner said:
Kenneth Margulies said:

if your point was so clear, where are the calls for impeachment?
are democrats idiots? political cowards?

Click to expand...

http://www.rawstory.com/aexternal/conyers_iraq_letter_502

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/conyers_downing_street_letter_rumsfeld_529

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/06/int05023.html

--
Ian Shanahan

[/U]

Kenneth Margulies · Jul 14, 2005

Bob,

i am trying to keep an open mind on issues like rove. if he did what they say, then he betrayed america's trust. left or right, to leak a cia officer's name for politcal reasons is wrong.i i still await his fate.

and i do think it funny that these issues are debated here on a photo site--i kinda made that point in one of my posts. i will never be convinced, and neither will they. i do try to understand why there is such irrational hatred for the usa though.

most countries have done worse, some better. but there is tremendous jealousy of the us and it influence. it consumes these people.
for me, it is a way to unwind before i sleep.

BobHaverford said:
The Left and their handmaidens are impervious to the blandishments
of reason. They deserve only our ridicule. Reason will NEVER
convince them.

Our hearts reach out to those in Baghdad...

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts