T1B

"Ya know uhhhhhh safe mine ahhhhhhhhh good mine uhhhhhhh 'collapsable coal' ya know uhhhh renewable energy ahhhhhhhhh buried miners are biodegradable uhhhhhh . . . ."

It's a quagmire, I tell ya. Time to redeploy.

sin,

the dems

They're dead Jim.

sin

smackaholic wrote:It's a quagmire, I tell ya. Time to redeploy.

sin,

the dems

So you’re equating a mine collapse with the Irag quagmire? I guess they’re both disasters, but you’re still an idiot.

Was listening to the Stern Replay this morning from 03/07/03. It's funny to listen back and hear people pimping the Iraq war as a solid idea, when now everyone bashes the shit out of it on a daily basis.

Believe it or not there were some people who were bashing the shit out of it from day one.

"Cut and runners" every one.

OCmike wrote:Was listening to the Stern Replay this morning from 03/07/03. It's funny to listen back and hear people pimping the Iraq war as a solid idea, when now everyone bashes the shit out of it on a daily basis.

What is 'funnier' is to listen to people still pimping it today.

BSmack wrote:They're dead Jim.

sin

That's what happens when you screw with the hortas.

Mikey wrote:Believe it or not there were some people who were bashing the shit out of it from day one.

"Cut and runners" every one.

Depends on their motives. A lot of the bashers were doing so because it was a Republican administration making the move and not because they thought that the war was necessarily a bad idea. To those people, I say "Booooooooooo...". I have no problem with those who thought it was a bad idea because it might cause civil war between Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis, but most of those types were Monday morning quarterbacks.

the bashers were doing so because it was a Republican administration making the move

Problem was, ALL of the opposition was being categorized in that way - and none too expertly. The bullshitters won the day, though.

OCmike wrote:

Mikey wrote:Believe it or not there were some people who were bashing the shit out of it from day one.

"Cut and runners" every one.

Depends on their motives. A lot of the bashers were doing so because it was a Republican administration making the move and not because they thought that the war was necessarily a bad idea. To those people, I say "Booooooooooo...". I have no problem with those who thought it was a bad idea because it might cause civil war between Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis, but most of those types were Monday morning quarterbacks.

Some people supported the Afghanistan invasion and thought that going into Iraq was dumb from day one, and not just because it was a Repbulican administration.

I think most that opposed from day one are pretty well split between honestly thinking it was dumb and being against anything done by bush.

Trouble is, most were actually on the wagon from day one, but, the second that wagon hit a bump they jumped quickly onto the other side using the "we were misled" card.

Damn, I'm glad we didn't go into WWII with the crowd we have now running things.

Can we get this thread back on it's original track please??

I mean Rumplecow's sis-in-law kicked the bucket.....show some respect!! Oh wait that was a different thread....

Risa is a wordy bitch!! Oh wait different thread.....




Ahhh yes! More miners dead. What a shock.......

smackaholic wrote: Trouble is, most were actually on the wagon from day one, but, the second that wagon hit a bump they jumped quickly onto the other side using the "we were misled" card.

Exactly. Well said.

OCmike wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Trouble is, most were actually on the wagon from day one, but, the second that wagon hit a bump they jumped quickly onto the other side using the "we were misled" card.

Exactly. Well said.

Misled? What were they misled about?

WMDs?
Saddam plotting with al Qaeda?
We will be greeted as liberators?
Mission accomplished?

For the record, I'm not on the wagon now, was not on the wagon at the time and have not been on the wagon since I spent 6 months in Germany at age 19.

WAR beer with lunch.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

OCmike wrote: Exactly. Well said.

Misled? What were they misled about?

Not a goddamn thing. They had the same intel the White House had.

That doesn't even pass the smell test. Like hell the White House turned over all of it's data to Congress.

mvscal wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Damn, I'm glad we didn't go into WWII with the crowd we have now running things.

Yeah, it's OK to murder several million civilians, lie to family members of soldiers killed in action, completely muzzle the press and execute American citizens designated as enemy combatants as long as there is a Democrat in the White House. In fact, it was even considered patriotic to do so.

I'm pretty sure that nobody around now was part of that.

Strawman much?

I'm curious as to how many of the "we were misled" crowd were in favor all the way through our last exercise in butting into another country's affairs, the bombing of the serbs.

Yeah, we didn't put troops on the ground, but, we sure as hell put more than a little ordinance on the place. And what exactly was the reason for that?

I guess ole slobo musta had WMDs?

nope.

Well, he was supporting alqueda, right?

nope

You mean we pretty much went in there just because the guy was an assbag that needed a litttle slapping around?

sorta, but not really.

If you can make for our interference in the balkans, you can make a much, much, much better case for taking out sadaam.

There is only one way you can explain support for taking out slobo and not sadaam. that would be who was giving the order to do so.

Somebody please 'splain otherwise.

smackaholic wrote:...serbs.

Apple, met Orange.

The extrication process in Serbia was simple enough to make it worth the cost of going in.

Congress may or may not have had the same intel on Iraq as the WH, but they sure as hell had enough intel to know it was a bad idea. Shame on anybody who thought it was a good idea.

mvscal wrote:Go fuck yourself, tard. Check back in when you get a fucking clue.

How about you check in when you can defend yourself. It's no fun beating down the defenseless. It's kinda what separates me from the Mike Vicks of the world.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:Go fuck yourself, tard. Check back in when you get a fucking clue.

How about you check in when you can defend yourself.

Against what? Your "smell test"?

Piss off, tard.

I must have missed the part where Congress was given unfettered access to data collected by the CIA, NSA, FBI...

Oh yea, maybe it is because it never fucking happened.

mvscal wrote:Yeah, you must have. Good thing you aren't on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

The Bushites won't even tell Congress IF they are spying on people until someone calls them on it. What makes you think they would allow unfettered access to the data said programs provide?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/17/ ... index.html

And why should they. What's your clearance again? Oh that's right, you don't need a clearance to work in Human Resources.

mvscal wrote:The only reason to go in anywhere is to defend our strategic interests. Here's a clue, dumbfuck. We have no strategic interests in Serbia.

Yes and No. To protect a small interest at a large price is foolish. To protect a large interest at an even larger price is also foolish.
Our interest in Serbia was small (you say zero, but only a complete fool believes that) but so was the price. The price in Serbia was zero service-people and less than 100billion cash. 100bil is a lot, but at least an argument can be made that it was worth it.
The human cost alone (>3,700 KIA, >15,000 Wounded) in Iraq is not worth what we are getting back in any improvement in out interests.

Even if the cost to interest ratio could work out as you claim, only a dunce would ever believe that Bush would be able to pull it off. For that reason alone invading Iraq was a bad idea.

mvscal wrote: They don't have to tell Congress, you fucking tard.

I don't think he is saying they do have to tell all. In fact his point seems to be that they don't have to and that they didn't which means that the WH knew more than Congress.
You seem to be saying they don't have to tell all and didn't tell all, but that Congress had the same intel as the WH. How does that work?

Kierland wrote:

mvscal wrote:They don't have to tell Congress, you fucking tard.

I don't think he is saying they do have to tell all. In fact his point seems to be that they don't have to and that they didn't which means that the WH knew more than Congress.

That is exactly what I've been saying.

mvscal wrote:The National Intelligence Estimate that the Intelligence Committee gets is the same NIE that the White House works from.

You never do get tired of plungering yourself.

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), prepared by or at the direction of the National Intelligence Council [1], is defined by the U.S. Department of Defense as a "strategic estimate of the capabilities, vulnerabilities, and probable courses of action of foreign nations produced at the national level as a composite of the views of the intelligence community. Also called NIE."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... e_Estimate

So again, what I said to begin with remains valid. Congress had a report. They did not have access to the raw data from which the report's conclusions were allegedly based.

mvscal wrote:{3,700+ dead isn't} a pisshole in a snowbank.

mvscal wrote:The decision that had to made in 2002 was whether or not that was an acceptable state of affairs {after 3,000 Americans were killed on 9-11} given his past and present support for terrorists not to mention any future connections he might make down the road.

You were saying?

mvscal wrote:Nobody works from raw data, you fucking moron. The White House and Congress were both working with the same fixed intell reports.

Period. End of motherfucking story.

FTFY

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:Nobody works from raw data, you fucking moron. The White House and Congress were both working with the same fixed intell reports.

Period. End of motherfucking story.

FTFY

Link?

What? You don't read your own damn posts anymore? You were the one who said "nobody works from raw data". If nobody works from raw data, then I am left to assume that the Administration just made shit up.

Make up your fucking mind.

...and we all know how unbaised your "assumptions" are when it comes to the Bush Administration. Gimme a break, already.

OCmike wrote:...and we all know how unbaised your "assumptions" are when it comes to the Bush Administration. Gimme a break, already.

This has nothing to do with the Bush Administration and everything to do with mv shooting himself in the foot. He's the one that admitted "nobody" uses raw data.

Kierland wrote:

mvscal wrote:{3,700+ dead isn't} a pisshole in a snowbank.

mvscal wrote:The decision that had to made in 2002 was whether or not that was an acceptable state of affairs {after 3,000 Americans were killed on 9-11} given his past and present support for terrorists not to mention any future connections he might make down the road.

You were saying?

wow! great point except OHHH i'm sorry you forgot that variable called time. 3000 in one Sept. morning compared to 4 yrs.

not quite what you portray, but thanks for playing, jackoff.

3,000+ dead is either a "pisshole in a snowbank" or it isn't.

It isn't.

Shouldn't you be bending over for Mace's (and a few others) amusement right about now, Queerland?

Kierland wrote:3,000+ dead is either a "pisshole in a snowbank" or it isn't.

really, is it?

War Wagon wrote:It isn't.

Then 9-11 was no big deal according to you. A pisshole in a snowbank as it were. Stunning.

Because it was a pisshole in a snowbank it required Two wars, The Patriot act, More spying, 3K+ lives, Billion$, Homeland security agencies and more? All for a pisshole in a snowbank? What will happen if 'they' do some real damage? You are unhinged.