Oh My God...McCain could win if he picks Palin!!!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
There was never any evidence that Saddam had complied with any of the requirements placed on him after his invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
yes,

I know, and one of his head guys just said they had to keep the facade up to prevent Iran and the Shia from launching another invasion.
 
yes,

but I did not have clearance to see the evidence

I have quite a bit of faith in Colin Powell
and I believe he would not gone along if they had given him what he believed to credible evidence.

that is why, he walked away from Bush/Cheney and said that day at the U N was the worst day of his life.

Colin Powell still supports the invasion and removal of Saddam to this day, because the justification never ever rested on finding WMD A, inside of building F.
 
yes,

but I did not have clearance to see the evidence

On what basis were you opposed to it, then? Or are you saying that your opposition was misguided?

I have quite a bit of faith in Colin Powell
and I believe he would not gone along if they had given him what he believed to credible evidence.

Why weren't you convinced of the need for the war after his UN speech?
 
There was never any evidence that Saddam had complied with any of the requirements placed on him after his invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

There was indeed evidence from Blitter that Saddam had complied with the vast majority of the requirements.
 
yes,

I know, and one of his head guys just said they had to keep the facade up to prevent Iran and the Shia from launching another invasion.

Failing to account for over 1,000 liters of anthrax, 500 pounds of nerve gas, 500 pounds of mustard gas, thousands of artillery shells, and maintaining programs related to the production of WMD that Iraq was not supposed to have, was not a facade.
 
Great argument. Too bad W didn't invade Iraq in 1993 when the assassination attempt actually took place.

Wait a sec, diamond is onto something. I mean, quite obviously the policy for an attempted assassination is to hold a grudge against that country and invade it some 12 years later. In that context the Iraq War is perfectly justifiable.

I know I have no qualms about it now that I see it in this light. :wink:
 
When I joined the forum, in 2005, you were against the Iraq war, correct?

How many times have you changed your mind?

Will you change it again?

To quote Thatcher, 'The lady's not for turning'.

I respect Obama's consistency on the Iraq war issue. I respect politicians who are consistent.

I don't deny I was against

and I never would


but, us a**holes on the internet, don't always get things right

and sometimes we get it right
for the wrong reasons.



my agile, non-reptilian brain allows me to refine my opinions with new and better information


now, W is a different story


i'll see your Thacher

and raise you one Byrds tune ( I have no idea who wrote the lyrics )


To everything (turn, turn, turn)
There is a season (turn, turn, turn)
And a time for every purpose, under heaven

A time to be born, a time to die
A time to plant, a time to reap
A time to kill, a time to heal
A time to laugh, a time to weep

To everything (turn, turn, turn)
There is a season (turn, turn, turn)
And a time for every purpose, under heaven
 
There was indeed evidence from Blitter that Saddam had complied with the vast majority of the requirements.

Its Butler. No one in the Security Council saw anything to make them think that Saddam had complied with a single UN security council resolution as of March 2003. Butler never provided any evidence that proved what Saddam had done with thousands of stocks of WMD that were missing. In addition, programs totally Unknown to UN inspectors or the United States related to the production of WMD were found after Saddam's removal.

Plus, its not just Saddam's actual capabilities at the time of the invasion, but a pattern of behavior over several years combined with other factors that made the invasion a necessity.
 
Its Butler. No one in the Security Council saw anything to make them think that Saddam had complied with a single UN security council resolution as of March 2003. Butler never provided any evidence that proved what Saddam had done with thousands of stocks of WMD that were missing. In addition, programs totally Unknown to UN inspectors or the United States related to the production of WMD were found after Saddam's removal.

Plus, its not just Saddam's actual capabilities at the time of the invasion, but a pattern of behavior over several years combined with other factors that made the invasion a necessity.

Ooops, I meant to say Hans Blix. I was thinking of Hans Blix and Scott Ritter, and somehow managed to conflate the two names to produce 'Blitter'.
 
Wait a sec, diamond is onto something. I mean, quite obviously the policy for an attempted assassination is to hold a grudge against that country and invade it some 12 years later. In that context the Iraq War is perfectly justifiable.

I know I have no qualms about it now that I see it in this light. :wink:


I know. It's nice to know that Dubya's need for Daddy's approval is a basis for invading a sovereign nation. Freud would argue that Bush is simply seeking the acceptance he didn't get in childhood. It's psychological, how can we possibly find fault?:doh:
 
Failing to account for over 1,000 liters of anthrax, 500 pounds of nerve gas, 500 pounds of mustard gas, thousands of artillery shells, and maintaining programs related to the production of WMD that Iraq was not supposed to have, was not a facade.

sorry my friend

we will just disagree


he had destroyed them all,
but just did not want to present the evidence for the IRANIANS

it was a facade.


and I do expect you to reply
and I will except whatever else you want to say.

because I know, on this board
you are the master of

Shock and Awe

so, I submit :wink:
 
There was indeed evidence from Blitter that Saddam had complied with the vast majority of the requirements.

Thank you!!!!! Which is why the war coul dhave waited. There was no immediate danger to the US or her allies.
 
How does one prove that one does not have what one has destroyed? :hmm:

SInce we cannot prove they have it, and they cannot prove they don't we shall pick and choose from intelligence reports..... to scare people after 9/11 into supporting this war. And since the very intelligence reports we shall pick and choose from do not support action, we shall pick sentences out of context to make our case...:up: And if those senctences do not work, we shall use British intelligence...hehe and even thought they have proven this yellow cake to be false, we shall tell the public it is true...And we shall promise our congress that we will indeed go through the UN but because we are afraid of the French Veto we shall use a vaguely proposed resolution that scholars can debate forever...it shall be called RES 1441 and it shall give us just enough cover to make war.


And this shall ruin our ability to conduct honest foreign policy for years to come. Because even though it was the right thing to do...conducting it dishonestly...will Fuck us for generations.
 
Ready to be Commander In Chief :up: :up:

41954472.jpg


sarahpalinpicture.jpg
 
there is a probe, and the results of that probe will be released in November.

i think we can all understand what she did on a human level.

but if we're going to wave her executive experience as some sort of trump card over Obama and Biden (but, yet, not McCain) as the increasingly desperate Republicans are doing,

then it's entirely appropriate to point out the fact that it's quite likely that she abused the executive power she was given

in order to exact revenge over a personal issue.


thank you.. and to the point.. some republicans are pushing the fact about her executive experience over Obama. The outcome of this probe is going to most certainly weigh on how she is going to be able to handle executive decisions if she becomes VP. Something to seriously think about for all of us.
 
the brother in law
used his police taser on a 10 year old
shot and killed a moose without a hunting license
and was drinking while working as a law enforcement officer.


the 10 year old was his step-son :huh:


the Governor had a file on this, the now fired guy told her
I think you should stop right there
let's not tall about this.

so they stopped

the guy said the brother-in-law is bad apple, he got suspended


the Governor fired the guy

she never said
fire my bro-in-law, or else

the new hire
was not told to fire the bro-in-law
bro-in-law has not been fired

there is no smoking gun


the Governor can fire appointees at will
she does not have to give cause.

the guy is not happy about being let go
unless he has some 'smoking gun' nothing will come of this


now, are all you Obama supporters so biased that you think a law enforcement officer that tasers 10 year olds, and drinks while on the clock, should not be fired?
 
Obama's bounce appears to already be starting to slide. In today's Gallup poll he only leads by 6 points, down from the 8 points he had led by on Friday and Saturday. Obama only led by an average of 3 points through out the summer since winning the nomination, and its possible he could be down to 3 points before we see the first polling results from the Republican convention.

Gallup Daily: Obama-Biden Ticket Leads by 6 Points


this is startling.

John McCain has just made what many think is the biggest gamble in presidential history with the Hail Mary pick of Sarah Palin, a pick designed as a media gimmick to minimize the impact of the Democratic convention as well as attempt to grab the discontented Hillary masses and toss a big bloody piece of red meat to the Christianist base.

and he's only got a 2 point bump, nevermind the long term political cost?

startling.
 
now, are all you Obama supporters so biased that you think a law enforcement officer that tasers 10 year olds, and drinks while on the clock, should not be fired?



i have said, on a human level, i do understand.

but this is something that should have come up had she been properly vetted.

which she wasn't.

why?

we have two examples of our candidates making the biggest decisions of their campaigns. one made a thoughtful, serious, well vetted, well consulted choice for someone who accentuated his strengths and buttressed his weaknesses as well as someone who he admired and knew he could work well with.

the other made an impulsive last minute gamble that shocked everyone.

who would you rather have dealing with Putin and Pakistan?
 
now, are all you Obama supporters so biased that you think a law enforcement officer that tasers 10 year olds, and drinks while on the clock, should not be fired?

When you beat a bad man to death it's not as bad...

Why is there an investigation? You could have saved a lot of time, Deep just solved it all for you.
 
this is startling.

John McCain has just made what many think is the biggest gamble in presidential history with the Hail Mary pick of Sarah Palin, a pick designed as a media gimmick to minimize the impact of the Democratic convention as well as attempt to grab the discontented Hillary masses and toss a big bloody piece of red meat to the Christianist base.

and he's only got a 2 point bump, nevermind the long term political cost?

startling.

Let's look at this a different way.

John McCain has just made a bold, typically maverick, move. Not only has he neutralized the Christian right reservations about his policy, he has also picked someone who will attract traditional fiscal conservatives AND moderate feminist liberals - neither of which were natural supporters of his campaign, particularly in the latter case.

In picking Palin, McCain may just have changed the entire frame of the election, and changed the face of American politics possibly for a generation.

And he has a 2 point bump, already, BEFORE the implications of the nomination have sunk in, BEFORE the Republican conference, AND over a weekend when most Americans are concentrating more on hurricanes than the election.

(But as an ill-informed Euro, I probably don't have a clue, right?:hyper:)
 
Let's look at this a different way.

John McCain has just made a bold, typically maverick, move. Not only has he neutralized the Christian right reservations about his policy, he has also picked someone who will attract traditional fiscal conservatives AND moderate feminist liberals - neither of which were natural supporters of his campaign, particularly in the latter case.

In picking Palin, McCain may just have changed the entire frame of the election, and changed the face of American politics possibly for a generation.

And he has a 2 point bump, already, BEFORE the implications of the nomination have sunk in, BEFORE the Republican conference, AND over a weekend when most Americans are concentrating more on hurricanes than the election.


look at my above post. we see how our candidates make decisions.

who would you, as a European, rather deal with?




(But as an ill-informed Euro, I probably don't have a clue, right?:hyper:)


thinking that being the governor of a highly idiosyncratic state of 600,000 people is adequate *preparation* for the presidency does strike me as not having much of a grasp of American history and context, and then insinuating that it's only because she's a woman -- which is laughable, because this is now the card the Republicans were playing on CNN, this from the people who shout about how Obama's been "playing the race card" -- and, yes, my initial impression does seem to be confirmed.

you also don't see many of us walking around making pronouncements about Irish politics.

yet, the continent seems to think it knows what's best for us.
 
i have said, on a human level, i do understand.

but this is something that should have come up had she been properly vetted.

which she wasn't.

why?

we have two examples of our candidates making the biggest decisions of their campaigns. one made a thoughtful, serious, well vetted, well consulted choice for someone who accentuated his strengths and buttressed his weaknesses as well as someone who he admired and knew he could work well with.

the other made an impulsive last minute gamble that shocked everyone.

who would you rather have dealing with Putin and Pakistan?



i wonder if the shoe was on the other foot, and it was a dem VP(referring to the Palin investigation) who did this very thing what the republicans would be saying. Making a stink I am sure. Actually, don't see alot of dems making too big of a stink about this yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom