heeeey, CONGRATULATIONS on 2 weeks, smoke free! That's an accomplishment! I couldn't do it with coffee, that's for sure, so you are a better man than I.

I'm with you on the latter statement, just think the CIA and a few Navy SEALs could have done a much better job with less loss of life, less chaos, less growth in terrorist training.

I'm not even sure why a "rogue" cruise missile didn't find Saddam well before the war. In the grand scheme of the world, it would have been a much better solution.

Sorry to get you all riled.

Don't get me wrong, I mean what I say just maybe with a little less zeal. I agree about the special forces stuff etc... But then there would almost surely be civil war and possible an even more crazy leader. Still possible now, just less likely.

Yep. Congrats.

I believed that Saddam probably had some banned weapons before the invasion, and I would not have objected to my government killing him and his sons, but I was still 100% against this war. Hopefully that clarifies my "liberal views" even further.

Nothing can change the fact that decisions made by my current government were not justified, legal, morally defensible or wise. The present state of Iraq was predictable and predicted, by everyone but the Bush administration and their supporters.

I have a different standard as to how many dead and/or horribly wounded people is an acceptable expendeture to achieve a political goal; most people in the world believe that all-out war is only alright when all other options have been exhausted, and their immediate security is at stake. That is of course why this debacle was sold as such, if anyone was told the truth the support would have been nil. Now the truth is out, and large numbers of people believe that we need to support the President who invaded on false premises because we have troops on the ground, what a pile of horse*****.

Either support the troops or the administration, pick one. :cool:

I don't recall saying "Support the President" though it would be nice:) I'm saying support the troops. Don't belittle the work they're doing, it demoralizes them and emboldens the enemy. You consider both of those bad right?

Or do you consider your right to speach/dissent more important than their chances of living/succeeding?

I gave no reason for invading? But... but...

I'm not gonna waste time repeating myself. I'm a happy in my own mind (why is there a cartoon in my head?).

I for one understand your points lendaddy.

The squirrel went "Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee"

Len, we will never hear them admit that the enemy is emboldened by bickering on the home front (even though that is a goal of the terrorist).

Instead, Fox news will be blamed for leading the obviously ignorant, uneducated, war-mongering right wingers to this conclusion.

Anyone who doesn't think that exactly what I describe happened "ElGrande" during the Vietnam war is a fool. Why would this time be any different. To be clear, I doubt most bleeding heart libs have thought their actions through to this extent. They are ignorant to their negative effect on our boys.

Tim, do you have any evidence to support your two assertions? I would love to see evidence supporting the former.

Here is incontrovertible evidence that Fox, the same people who brought you Joe Millionaire, misleads its audience:

I saw this a week ago watching Fox and CNN flipping back and forth, documented it then in another thread.

Fox reported about the Gonzales hearing that it was a jovial affair, "a love fest at times with even democrats embracing him, one calling him "ol' buddy".

That was the entire story with a few clips of softball questions.

Same story on CNN revealed contentious questioning at times, even from Republicans. It showed one Republican talking about just the idea of looking to get around international laws against torture means you've lost the moral high ground.

But here's the topper! Remember Democrats calling him "ol buddy" in the Fox report? We'll, Joe Biden was questioning him on whether he thinks the President is, at times, beyond international law in regards to ordering torture.

Gonzales answers that it's a hypothetical question and that Bush didn't order the torture at Abu Graib and goes on to say that he can't say whether or not he thinks the President can order torture because it may effect the outcome of a future case. What is Biden's response?

Biden says his opinion now has absolutely no bearing on a future case, that it's "malarkey" and says "we're looking for a straight answer here, ol buddy"

Having an independent media source be an apologist for the government is the first step in slippery slope toward Fascism. Not saying that's going to happen in the US, but as a media source, Fox helps shape public opinion. Did Fox lie in their reporting? No, he really was called ol buddy by Democrat.

Is that really what happened? No.

I watch both to get both sides. This happens a lot. IT'S CALLED CONTEXT.

Now I know why so many people are confused in this country. They are being lied to on a daily basis and would never even know it. Poor souls.

See, I knew it!:D :D :D SmileWavy

like clockwork;)

Tim, I've never called anyone an idiot on this board, and I don't intend to start now, but if you read that nearly verbatim exchange and come to your conclusion, I honestly feel sorry for you.

When you have to say fair and balanced, it's usually the case that you are not. I worry for our country. Please, please, please don't procreate.

interesting poll regarding this subject:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-iraqpoll19jan19,0,7592168.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Shaun, he did nail you dead on, I mean it is sorta funny:) You gotta laugh at yourself every now and then. Anyway as far as your example, may I ask which person from FOX said that?

BTW I have Fox on here at the office most times, and I did not get that impression from their coverage.

Why gee Shaun, thanks for caring, it means alot to dumb people like myself when such wisdom is passed down from such knowledgable people as yourself. Well at least you do not bring up aliens.

Now go hump someone elses leg.

Len, I can certainly laugh at myself, no problem there, and I intentionally gave him what we was after since it was actual proof that Fox misleads. that Tim would see this as proof rather than question his sources pretty much seals the deal for me that no one wants to think anymore, but rather enjoy the spoonfed pablum today's media. Did you see Bill O'Reilly last night? He think Intelligent Design should be taught in biology class. Furthermore, and this is nearly a direct quote, he said that if God came down tomorrow and revealed himself, it would be science.

Now I have no problem wiht ID and think it has some merit, but it's not science which is theory, test, refine, reevaluate, conclude. IP is interesting from a phylosophical point of view, but no one endorsing it has ever subjected it to the scientific process. they just say, look at all this stuff, must have been made by somebody, and that's the argument. And quite honestly, so many things in nature are so backward, that whoever made it, wasn't very intelligent. Yes, I have a Bio/Biochem degree and studies structural molecular biochemisty and X-ray crystallography, so I have an informed opinion.

Len, you wouldn't get the idea from my transcript of watching Fox unless you were flipping back and saw the entire clips on CNN. Like I said, it's all about context!!

You don't know you are being lied to unless you see the truth. In this case, CNN rolled footage before and after the "buddy" language give the correct context.

Fox said that it was a love fest with Senators call him ol buddy.

Do you see the difference?

lastly, if was on the 5PM news show, who ever hosts that.

Just keep your sperm to yourself, 'K?

Sheesh...even when i don't post..you have to malign me. I saw this was going nowhere on the first page where someone actually quoted Scott Ritter (Iraq's paid representative) regarding WMD...LOL...Sorta like quoting the recipients of the stolen "oil-for-food" money about feeding Iraqi children...Or a liberal on "supporting the troops."

Fintstone, prove it. Refute the message..

Refute what message?

Could you possibly mean the statement that Ritter made defending Saddam? It is not a big surprise that Ritter changed his opinion regarding Iraq WMD completely after he was paid off by Iraq. $250,000.00 buys a lot of friends. It might be a bit more convincing if he had made similar statements before his payoff and while he was actually an inspector with current knowledge of the situation...but not years later. The last time Ritter was an inspector, he was adamant that Saddam had WMDs....why would he have better info as a private citizen?