@masamunecyrus"I've always wondered why the war in Iraq has tuned into a Republican vs. Democrat thing. All the blame has been put on the Republicans, and even stranger, nearly all Republicans feel the need to support the war."Because Iraq is messed up. The Democrats acknowledge that this is the case and want to either pull out or raise the troop level. The way it is now is just not working. The Republicans are trying to produce one image of what they want. And although it's changed from "Stay the course" to "adapt to win", they still just want to stay there with no changes.@masamunecyrus"May I remind us all that while the war may have been pushed by Bush, both the CIA and MI6's intelligence was wrong, AND most importantly, it takes 2/3rds of the Congress to support declaring war before it can ever be declared. In fact, the resolution to use force against Iraq was approved in the Senate 77-23. That means 77% of our representatives, Democrat or Republican, voted unanimously IN SUPPORT of the use of force in Iraq."Maybe I should remind you of the following:1) The Intel provided as justification was dead wrong. The US didn't go there to spread democracy, it went to disarm a Dictator with the nuke. If I can quote Condy Rice "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud".2) We haven't declared war.3) MI6 didn't get it wrong. They knew the info that provided the justification for war was both "extremely unlikely" and gotten under durress (torture). Only our Intel agencies got it wrong. According to many in the CIA this was because Cheney made them say what he wanted them to say.@masamunecyrus"Don't take this message the wrong way, I'm not supporting the Republicans or bashing the Democrats. Rather, I'm just sick of all of the blame going towards the Republicans. The president, Republican or not, cannot declare war -- it's up for the Senate to decide that. The Democrats share just as much blame in this as the Republicans do. I just don't like seeing one party get away free and one party held accountable for what happened -- both parties are greedy and corrupt, and I want to see the blame passed all around. If we can blame everyone who is responsible, as opposed to just the ruling party, perhaps Washington will clean itself up a bit."The President was given the power to use force against iraq as a last resort. This was because he linked Iraq to Al-Qaeda. Does anyone believe that he used the attack as a last resort? That was his mandate.The Congress never declared war.
Ok, does anyone else here think that "bclinton" is the most juvenile, retarded poster in this thread? Vote yes for that by digging my comment. You're just an amusing little moron bclinton. You're either some young child on here or a very immature manchild. I guess you're busy thumbing through your Anne Coulter book right now on how to talk to liberals lol. Put it down dummy and use your brain for once in your life. I notice all you have is juvenile insults that you can try to assume you know about me. So in your book, anyone who disagrees with you is a traitorous, anti American liberal who should be tried for treason. bclinton is clearly one of those who if he was to get his way with the government eventually, he would have all of us hung from the gallows. He would have been with the Red Coats. He would have been with the Nazi brown shirts rounding up the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. bclinton is either some very stupid young kid in a republican household who knows nothing or he is an immature, retarded kid in a grown mans body. I'm also thinking that bclinton may really be a put on. He seems to be more of a caricature of a stupid redneck gung ho hawk type. I know there are those out there who are genuinely like that, but it seems almost hard to believe that someone could be this stupid and intolerant. He either is the stereotype he represents or he is actually an agent provacateur who is trying to make the right look bad. It is interesting that his name is "bclinton" after all. Makes me wonder and he has what appears to be intentional misspellings.
LOL. Reply three different times in a row. LMAO. You must be a little too sensitive. If you get this upset with comments by virtually anonymous people, I just wonder what you're like in real life. Kind of a scary thought. Then again, judging by the lengthy, and I mean LENGTHY posts you make, you probably don't converse with many people in real life anyway. Here is what you need to do: Get out, Get laid, have fun, and ummm... right a book?
Actually, I didn't read a single post of yours except the "bclinton even surpasses LoneRanger for stupidity in this thread" one. Your posts are way way way TOO LONG for me to waste time on. Then I noticed you and bclinton's ongoing battle at which point I simply said "You both need a life". You then took this as "attacking" when it wasn't even exclusively directed toward you. As for me being sensitive, I have no idea what you're talking about. Please identify the notion that gave you this idea. Another thing, you say that my "assumptions could very well just as much apply to you (me)" but the difference is I don't spend hours writing NOVELS to POST IN A FORUM, nor do I get all worked up by someone posting anonymous comments on the Internet. I will say this: I was done with this forum after my first comment however I wanted to see how many times I got dugg down, but when I saw how sensitive you are and that you replied three times in a row, I had to push your buttons. This is my last post, so no need to reply three or four times in a row expressing your anger. Anyway, thank you for the laughs, it has been truly enjoyable. Oh yes, get a life loser.Edit: Great, now look, I'm turning into you. A Novelist. This goes down as my longest post ever. Maybe a character limit should be implemented.
"It's kind of subtle and overlaps."And that, my friend, is the mark of an opinion piece that is trying to be passed as a news story. Happens all the time in newspaper publishing. Little words here and there, lots of facts but shot through with the author's opinions also. The rules of the Op-Ed section continue to bleed more and more into the front page headlines nowadays, unfortunately.Actually, this one was a lot less subtle and not really that well done, as far as deceptively written "news stories slash op-ed pieces" go. Even the headline, which any honest editor will tell you, is shot through with opinion. Best not to give yourself away right at the headline, but this guy does. Having seen a zillion of them over the years, I could tell these things a mile away. It's an op-ed piece trying to pass itself as a news story. No two ways about it. Too bad a lot of people can't spot the difference anymore.
kabewmOct 15, 2006
@masamunecyrus"I've always wondered why the war in Iraq has tuned into a Republican vs. Democrat thing. All the blame has been put on the Republicans, and even stranger, nearly all Republicans feel the need to support the war."Because Iraq is messed up. The Democrats acknowledge that this is the case and want to either pull out or raise the troop level. The way it is now is just not working. The Republicans are trying to produce one image of what they want. And although it's changed from "Stay the course" to "adapt to win", they still just want to stay there with no changes.@masamunecyrus"May I remind us all that while the war may have been pushed by Bush, both the CIA and MI6's intelligence was wrong, AND most importantly, it takes 2/3rds of the Congress to support declaring war before it can ever be declared. In fact, the resolution to use force against Iraq was approved in the Senate 77-23. That means 77% of our representatives, Democrat or Republican, voted unanimously IN SUPPORT of the use of force in Iraq."Maybe I should remind you of the following:1) The Intel provided as justification was dead wrong. The US didn't go there to spread democracy, it went to disarm a Dictator with the nuke. If I can quote Condy Rice "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud".2) We haven't declared war.3) MI6 didn't get it wrong. They knew the info that provided the justification for war was both "extremely unlikely" and gotten under durress (torture). Only our Intel agencies got it wrong. According to many in the CIA this was because Cheney made them say what he wanted them to say.@masamunecyrus"Don't take this message the wrong way, I'm not supporting the Republicans or bashing the Democrats. Rather, I'm just sick of all of the blame going towards the Republicans. The president, Republican or not, cannot declare war -- it's up for the Senate to decide that. The Democrats share just as much blame in this as the Republicans do. I just don't like seeing one party get away free and one party held accountable for what happened -- both parties are greedy and corrupt, and I want to see the blame passed all around. If we can blame everyone who is responsible, as opposed to just the ruling party, perhaps Washington will clean itself up a bit."The President was given the power to use force against iraq as a last resort. This was because he linked Iraq to Al-Qaeda. Does anyone believe that he used the attack as a last resort? That was his mandate.The Congress never declared war.
jdenigmaOct 16, 2006
Ok, does anyone else here think that "bclinton" is the most juvenile, retarded poster in this thread? Vote yes for that by digging my comment. You're just an amusing little moron bclinton. You're either some young child on here or a very immature manchild. I guess you're busy thumbing through your Anne Coulter book right now on how to talk to liberals lol. Put it down dummy and use your brain for once in your life. I notice all you have is juvenile insults that you can try to assume you know about me. So in your book, anyone who disagrees with you is a traitorous, anti American liberal who should be tried for treason. bclinton is clearly one of those who if he was to get his way with the government eventually, he would have all of us hung from the gallows. He would have been with the Red Coats. He would have been with the Nazi brown shirts rounding up the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. bclinton is either some very stupid young kid in a republican household who knows nothing or he is an immature, retarded kid in a grown mans body. I'm also thinking that bclinton may really be a put on. He seems to be more of a caricature of a stupid redneck gung ho hawk type. I know there are those out there who are genuinely like that, but it seems almost hard to believe that someone could be this stupid and intolerant. He either is the stereotype he represents or he is actually an agent provacateur who is trying to make the right look bad. It is interesting that his name is "bclinton" after all. Makes me wonder and he has what appears to be intentional misspellings.
jdenigmaOct 16, 2006
bclinton even surpasses LoneRanger for stupidity in this thread.
lvsfinestOct 16, 2006
LOL. Reply three different times in a row. LMAO. You must be a little too sensitive. If you get this upset with comments by virtually anonymous people, I just wonder what you're like in real life. Kind of a scary thought. Then again, judging by the lengthy, and I mean LENGTHY posts you make, you probably don't converse with many people in real life anyway. Here is what you need to do: Get out, Get laid, have fun, and ummm... right a book?
lvsfinestOct 16, 2006
Actually, I didn't read a single post of yours except the "bclinton even surpasses LoneRanger for stupidity in this thread" one. Your posts are way way way TOO LONG for me to waste time on. Then I noticed you and bclinton's ongoing battle at which point I simply said "You both need a life". You then took this as "attacking" when it wasn't even exclusively directed toward you. As for me being sensitive, I have no idea what you're talking about. Please identify the notion that gave you this idea. Another thing, you say that my "assumptions could very well just as much apply to you (me)" but the difference is I don't spend hours writing NOVELS to POST IN A FORUM, nor do I get all worked up by someone posting anonymous comments on the Internet. I will say this: I was done with this forum after my first comment however I wanted to see how many times I got dugg down, but when I saw how sensitive you are and that you replied three times in a row, I had to push your buttons. This is my last post, so no need to reply three or four times in a row expressing your anger. Anyway, thank you for the laughs, it has been truly enjoyable. Oh yes, get a life loser.Edit: Great, now look, I'm turning into you. A Novelist. This goes down as my longest post ever. Maybe a character limit should be implemented.
thelonegunmanOct 16, 2006
hmmm - where are the neocon trolls flagging THIS as "possibly inaccurate"...
waveyOct 17, 2006
"It's kind of subtle and overlaps."And that, my friend, is the mark of an opinion piece that is trying to be passed as a news story. Happens all the time in newspaper publishing. Little words here and there, lots of facts but shot through with the author's opinions also. The rules of the Op-Ed section continue to bleed more and more into the front page headlines nowadays, unfortunately.Actually, this one was a lot less subtle and not really that well done, as far as deceptively written "news stories slash op-ed pieces" go. Even the headline, which any honest editor will tell you, is shot through with opinion. Best not to give yourself away right at the headline, but this guy does. Having seen a zillion of them over the years, I could tell these things a mile away. It's an op-ed piece trying to pass itself as a news story. No two ways about it. Too bad a lot of people can't spot the difference anymore.
ichbinladenOct 17, 2006
I think they left because no one likes them.