On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:06:21 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


So, I propose this idea for your consideration:

Ask yourself if you believe the USA and other Coalition forces were
justified in attacking Iraq in order to liberate Kuwait in the first Gulf
War?



If your answer is "No", then you are truly anti-war, and against any
intervention in other country's affairs or aid to our allies with whom we
have treaties and promises to help protect.



However, if you answered, "Yes", please consider this POV:





Following the Gulf War, Saddam and his government remained in power.

Over time, Saddam began rejecting agreements made and agreed to in the UN
resolutions.

Saddam began firing on Coalition aircraft monitoring the compliance of those
resolutions.

Saddam began obstruction of the activities of UN weapons inspectors.

Eventually Saddam kicked the UN weapons inspectors out of the country.



Saddam became more and more defiant and boastful, making renewed threats to
neighboring countries.

He continued to threaten and murder dissenters within Iraq.

He continued to maintain the image of having WMDs. (this is important)



After his capture, he claimed all WMD's had been destroyed, either by the UN
inspectors or by his own government.

However, he acknowledged that he maintained a pretense of having WMDs
hidden, mainly to provide an image of capability due to the potential
threats of neighboring nations, including Iran.



The world's intelligence agencies .... repeat .... the world's intelligence
agencies, including those of the USA, and most members of Congress believed
those claims, because he refused to account for the total destruction of
all WMDs. Again, he *refused* to account for the destruction of all WMDs
while hinting around that he still had some.



Result?



Over six months of demands for him to come clean, allow the resumption of
inspections, compliance with UN Gulf War resolutions, all of which were
rejected, ignored or stalled upon.



That's why we invaded Iraq. Bush didn't "lie" in my opinion. He believed
what most all other people reading the intelligence believed, including
Congress, and did what he thought was necessary. What he thought was
necessary may be legitimately debated, but it's a cop-out to say, "Not my
fault, I was lied to."





Now, with that submitted, I also realize, as evidenced by the absolutely
ridiculous and childlike politicking that is going on right now, primarily
by the Dems, that reason, logic and common sense don't apply when it comes
to politics. It's ok to lie, create "stories" or facts, and change history
as long as it serves your agenda.



It's disgusting.





Eisboch



Lying always is.
--
John *H*
(Not the other one!)

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:21:34 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:16:13 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
m...


Whatever Clinton's lies about his sex life, their significance pale in
comparison to the Bush Administration's ongoing lies about its war against
Iraq.



Some of the outright lies being perpetrated by his hopeful successor puts
her in the same category. Very scary.

"Misspoken", my ass.

Eisboch



She claimed it was because she was tired. Later it was confirmed that the claim
was written into her prepared speech before she gave it. It wasn't some off the
cuff flub.



What do you mean 'it'? She's said the same things or versions thereof at
least three times. Heard them all on Rush's show.
--
John *H*
(Not the other one!)

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:00:42 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Plus, the movement to disrupt the convention on the Obaminions side if
Obama isn't nominated and the same from the Clintonistas.

WHOO HOO!!!

What's really fun is reading the left side of the blogosphere - both
sides are going apoplectic using language they usually reserve for GWB
for each other.

It's delicious.

That last was cruel.

But, I'm not complaining.
--
John *H*
(Not the other one!)

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
news
Hmmm. I thought we were discussing the Bush Administrations
rationalizations for its war against Iraq. Did I miss a post?



No.

You've been Bush and GOP bashing for years in this NG on a daily basis.
We know what you think.
It's our turn to comment on lies and deceit of some of the Dems that you
admire so much.

Eisboch

Oh. Well, have fun with it. Let me know when Obama's or Hillary's lies
lead to the deaths of 4000 Americans overseas, the wounding of about
40,000 others, the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and a trillion
dollars flushed down the toilet.


I don't know what to believe. But when I see a potential POTUS lying with
such a cavalier attitude about it when caught, just to get the nomination of
her party, I get nervous. It's obvious and a fact that she's very capable
of lying to achieve a goal. It's a theory by some (and unproven) that Bush
did.

It could be much, much worse.

Eisboch

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:14:47 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


I don't know what to believe. But when I see a potential POTUS lying
with such a cavalier attitude about it when caught, just to get the
nomination of her party, I get nervous. It's obvious and a fact that
she's very capable of lying to achieve a goal. It's a theory by some
(and unproven) that Bush did.

Both Bill and Hillary are known to play fast and loose with truth. What
surprises me, is that you are unwilling to accept that GWB does too. Not
all of Bush's lies are unproven. Here's one that is quite similar to
Hillary's recent lie.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushlie.html

I agree with your up-thread post, a sniper would heighten my memory for
detail. I can also say, most people can remember exact detail when first
hearing about 9/11. Hell, I can remember exactly where I was when I
first heard of JFK's assassination.

Hillary is a "deceitful liar", but GWB is not?


It could be much, much worse.

Eisboch

"John H." wrote in message
...

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:19:14 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:




I heard the same thing. But not from Russ Limbaugh. (I've never listened
to him).

I heard it from ..... Keith Olbermann. Even he was in disbelief, given
his obvious leanings. He also reported on a number of other "fact
embellishments" regarding HClinton's claims of diplomatic experience.

Must have been a slow news night for Keith.

Eisboch




I wonder if that makes you an Olbermann retard? He's worse than Limbaugh
ever thought of being.

Hard to believe he said something nasty about Hillary.


I listen and watch him. Most of the time I have to grit my teeth to do so,
but I listen to what he has to say.

Eisboch

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:19:14 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:

Heard them all on Rush's show.




Yup. Thought Herring was a Limbaugh retard.


I heard the same thing. But not from Russ Limbaugh. (I've never listened
to him).

I heard it from ..... Keith Olbermann. Even he was in disbelief, given
his obvious leanings. He also reported on a number of other "fact
embellishments" regarding HClinton's claims of diplomatic experience.

Must have been a slow news night for Keith.

Eisboch


I wonder if that makes you an Olbermann retard? He's worse than Limbaugh
ever thought of being.

Hard to believe he said something nasty about Hillary.
--
John *H*
(Not the other one!)