What the Captured Documents Show

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by fastpat
Jeff, the Bush'ists would be considered wack-jobs but for one thing, they control the White House and that controls all the government guns and weapons, but no thinking man considers the Bush'ists to be rational people, particularly no genuine conservative.

You can view The American Conservative or Chronicles Magazine to see for yourself, both are hard core conservative publications.

Don't confuse him with actual facts. I'm a liberal because I oppose the Iraq war, and am dismayed by the blindingly incompetent manner in which it was planned.

OT "conservative" = embrace incompetence, out of control federal spending, and any bonehead move the president makes next. Bonus points for continuing to believe Saddam was an "imminent threat" to America.

OT "liberal" = everyone else

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by fastpat
Jeff, the Bush'ists would be considered wack-jobs but for one thing, they control the White House and that controls all the government guns and weapons, but no thinking man considers the Bush'ists to be rational people, particularly no genuine conservative.

You can view The American Conservative or Chronicles Magazine to see for yourself, both are hard core conservative publications.

Oh, I know, Pat. As a conservative it has gotten increasingly difficult to watch Dubya in action. He has betrayed so much of our core platform. Looking at the alternatives offered by our effectively closed two party system is cause for even greater concern, however. I wonder if we will ever again be offered a choice that does not boil down to the lesser of two evils.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
*** for those of us that can look at this information objectively, it offers valuable insight into the true state of affairs in Iraq. ***

I won't be looking to you or fint or Nul for "objective" information anytime soon.

I think Bush is an incompetent buffoon. No, I take that back. I know Bush is an incompetent buffoon.

Does that make me so biased that I am incapable of determining whether Saddam was an imminent threat to America? I don't think so.

George Bush, who I'm sure doesn't share my view of George Bush, no longer claims that Saddam was an imminent threat to America. That I agree with him on this, and disagree with you, is enough for me.

[Jim Richards]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
I wonder if we will ever again be offered a choice that does not boil down to the lesser of two evils.

I feel the same way. Our choices have really sucked for quite some time now. Maybe due to the ruthlessness of recent campaigns. B2 and his brain (Rove) have taken this ruthlessness to new levels. I look forward to the day (I hope!) where the quality of leadership is up to the task of making America stronger. And no, I'm not talking stronger militarily, but stronger in all ways.

[Rodeo]

I think it's dangerous to mix discussion of Iraq and politics. We are either on the right track or wrong track in Iraq. If you think we are right, then fine, stay the course.

If you think we are not, then I believe that it is your duty as an American to say so, no matter what the political implications.

The last holdouts seem to be implying that even if we are making a mess of the Middle East, making ourselves and our children less safe, and spending money like drunken fools, admitting these inconvenient facts might give the dreaded “liberals” a boost.

That one will not criticize a reckless and incompetent administration for political motives seems to me to be more un-American that anything else.

If you love America, stand up for her, even if that means standing down for the likes of George Bush.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
Oh, I know, Pat. As a conservative it has gotten increasingly difficult to watch Dubya in action. He has betrayed so much of our core platform.

In my opinion, he's betrayed it all. Aggressive warfare isn't a conservative value and never was. It runs counter to everything the founders wanted for America, and runs counter to those of the old right who opposed America's worst fascist, Franklin Roosevelt, before he plunged America into World War Two. Roosevelt forced their silence during that time, but we genuine conservatives won't be silent now and never again.

One of my favorite people, James Bovard, an author with one of the finest minds in America, whose prose skewered Clinton and his supporters many times, has now written several books doing the same to the Bush'ists. You might take a look at them.

Looking at the alternatives offered by our effectively closed two party system is cause for even greater concern, however. I wonder if we will ever again be offered a choice that does not boil down to the lesser of two evils.

We may not be offered such a choice in our lifetimes, that argues strongly to each of us to be loyal, not to men and a party, but to principles, morals, and ethics; and demanding that politicians do the same.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by widebody911
Gladly, since Sandy only took copies of existing documents.

Right, that is why he entered the National Archives, on multiple occasions, committed the felonies and risked imprisonment and lifelong humiliation.

I suppose you also believe that oral sex isn't sex and Bill got nothing more than a blowjob from Monica?

This goes a long way to me understanding how you could be a liberal.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Rodeo
I won't be looking to you or fint or Nul for "objective" information anytime soon.

Contempt prior to investigation will leave a man in everlasting ignorance.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by fintstone
Just as the author stated, "They offer more proof of what we've already learned from other sources: that Hussein was in collusion with al Qaeda; that he did instruct his people on hiding evidence of WMDs; and that he did support worldwide terror."

Let me point out again, where do they show Hussein as an imminent threat to use WMD, or imminent threat to US or was connected to 9-11.

We all knew he used gas before, and we all knew he supported Palestinian terrorists.

Show me some DOD documents substantiating the clear reasons for war: Iraq was imminent threat to US and was connected to 9-11.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose

I suppose you also believe that oral sex isn't sex and Bill got nothing more than a blowjob from Monica?

This goes a long way to me understanding how you could be a liberal.

As a matter of fact that is true. Pants on fire again, huh NUl.

Sex is coitus, the other stuff so commonly now refrerred to as oral sex is merely a form of masturbation. It was never even considered "sex" by us old farts. Sex is coitus and always will be.

But back to this thread. Show me the imminent WMD threat to US?

[Mulhollanddose]

This thread proves conclusively that unless Democrats and the leftist media all apologize for bathing the Nation in lies and propaganda, the Democrat hardcore will continue to regurgitate and circulate any divisive hate speech they spew.

Why do I feel that if we found the "stockpile" of WMD, the Democrat thumb-suckers would still not admit what scumbags they are?

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Why do I feel that if we found the "stockpile" of WMD, the Democrat thumb-suckers would still not admit what scumbags they are?

Because you are up to your eyeballs in hate. You need enemies, or you would have nothing to say. If you had no one to hate, I doubt you would bother to get up in the morning.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Because you are up to your eyeballs in hate. You need enemies, or you would have nothing to say. If you had no one to hate, I doubt you would bother to get up in the morning.

So you admit Saddam was connected to Bin Laden's al qaeda and that they had mutual interests in WMD and harming America?

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
So you admit Saddam was connected to Bin Laden's al qaeda and that they had mutual interests in WMD and harming America?

I'm with the administration on this one, Nul.

If and when there is proof that Saddam was an imminent threat to America, the White House will be sure to let us know.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by fastpat
[B]In my opinion, he's betrayed it all. Aggressive warfare isn't a conservative value and never was. It runs counter to everything the founders wanted for America, and runs counter to those of the old right who opposed America's worst fascist, Franklin Roosevelt, before he plunged America into World War Two. Roosevelt forced their silence during that time, but we genuine conservatives won't be silent now and never again.

One of my favorite people, James Bovard, an author with one of the finest minds in America, whose prose skewered Clinton and his supporters many times, has now written several books doing the same to the Bush'ists. You might take a look at them.



We may not be offered such a choice in our lifetimes, that argues strongly to each of us to be loyal, not to men and a party, but to principles, morals, and ethics; and demanding that politicians do the same.

Thanks Pat, I'll take a look. The concept of remaining loyal to principals, morals, and ethics may be the only thing that pulls us through in the end. Blind loyalty, or blind hatred towards men and a party are equally destructive. It helps to be able to take an objective look at both.

It is apparent that some of our more intellectually challenged OT contributors believe I am some kind of Bush'ist, blindly following him wherever he leads. Nothing could be further from the truth. These same simpletons clearly believe that whatever wrong Bush has done is because he is a Republican and a conservative. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. There goes that blind hatred approach again. If only we had a liberal Democrat in the White House, everything would be better, right? Right...

The fact remains that either major party, and any man that lands in the White House today, is likely to commit the same transgressions against the American people and our Constitution as has Dubya, Bubba, and a long list of their predecessors.

Bush's opposition, particularly here on OT, tends to focus on the war. They think it is simple enough for them to understand (they are wrong about that too, by the way) so they focus on it to the exclusion of much farther reaching abuses of power. Our political leaders count on this. They play these people like a fiddle. And, unlike tabs pushing his retards down the stairs, they will never even feel any guilty pangs...

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
***It is apparent that some of our more intellectually challenged OT contributors believe I am some kind of Bush'ist, blindly following him wherever he leads. Nothing could be further from the truth.***

Refusing to admit that Saddam's Iraq was not an "imminent threat" to America makes you precisely that -- a blind follower and Bush apologist.

I note that you persist in calling Bush a "conservative" when it is clear that he is not. More evidence of blind, unthinking loyalty to a man.

I respect those that are loyal to their principles, even if I disagree, and to our country. So far, you have demonstrated loyalty only to George Bush.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Rodeo Refusing to admit that Saddam's Iraq was not an "imminent threat" to America makes you precisely that -- a blind follower and Bush apologist.

Jay Rockefeller (Democrat of the robberbaron fortune) from the Senate Intelligence Commitee (2002):

"As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated."

[Mulhollanddose]

The left's walls are crumbling, they are being uncovered for the maliciously teasonous malfactors that they have always been. Thankfully the new media is making the once easily duped and manipulated public aware of how dangerously deceptive they are and have been. The left media have long been complicit in shoving their lies down the nation's throat. This leftist culture of divisive politics centered in the reaquisition of power has ripped our country apart and poisoned the political process.

We could hope the teasonous left would apologize for this orchestrated undermining of a just and necessary policy, but getting these democrat swine to amend their dangerous ways would be like teaching a pig to sing.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Jay Rockefeller (Democrat of the robberbaron fortune) from the Senate Intelligence Commitee (2002):

"Saddam's government has contact with many international terrorist organizations that likely have cells here in the United States."

"He could make those weapons [WMD] available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly."

He added:

"Some argue it would be totally irrational for Saddam Hussein to initiate an attack against the mainland United States, and they believe he would not do it. But if Saddam thought he could attack America through terrorist proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might not think it so irrational."

[RoninLB]

afaik it's technically possible for 3 illegals to bring in a small atomic bomb through our southern border.