Question: What reason would Iraq have for not fully disclosing that they had in fact had no WMD's?

Here's a hint... It starts with I and ends with Ran...

Two different thought trains here Mitch, and you are trying to blend them:

""conveyed a belief that Iraq was better off under the rule of Hussein that it is today.""

The citizens of Iraq would in NO WAY be better of if SoDamn was still in charge. the thought is like you say, a 'hung over on KoolAid' one.

However, now you go into the much Bigger picture. Is the World or USA better off now that SoDamn was deposed. JDRock states

"the world would be better off today if the United States had never invaded Iraq"

Having watched thing unfold over the last several years, there are some very valid arguments to support this claim, regardless of whether I agree with it or not.

But you start with one premise (Iraq better off), as ludicrous as it is, and try to hold it out as the same as the final point (world better off)

Apples and oranges it seems to me.

Flash

Flash is entirely correct although his point will certainly be lost here...

That's not surprising. Consider the wiretapping issue... Democrats charge that the White House shouldn't conduct illegal wiretapping. That's very clear - The White House should be following FISA Court regulations and report the action to the courts. They even have a 72 hour post action opportunity to comply.

Republicans repeat the charge that Democrats are trying to stop the President from wiretapping phones.

That's completely ridiculous but you keep doing it. I would argue that Republicans are just being intellectually dishonest but I'm really starting to believe maybe they really aren't capable of understanding the difference.

Obviously, Doug, it is the administration's position that the president is NOT conducting illegal wiretapping.

Obviously Terry if there's nothing illegal about the way he is conducting the wiretaps, there's no reason he shouldn't go to the FISA Courts.

By the way Terry, the President was given the authority to use the Armed forces to disarm Hussein and enforce the UN resolutions.

If the President wants to use the full war powers authority, then he can ask Congress to declare war.

You know... Constitution and all...

"If the "wire-tapping" (there are no wires, duh) were illegal the Democrats could get it stopped today."

Oh really Kermit... and just exactly how would the Democrats, in the minority, go about making that happen?

Oh wait... I know... The Republicans would author a bill confirming it's illegality and attach an amendment to the bill which would immediately cut funding to the NEA. Then they would dare the Democrats to vote for it.

There hasn't been any wire tapping going on without FISA warrants.

The program the NSA had going did not entail listening to actual phone conversations. What was happening is they would listen to patterns of conversations coming from areas where terrorists are supposedly located. From there, if there were any suspicious patterns derived from the data collection, a FISA warrant was obtained to listen in on that specific phone line.

Believe me, if anyone's civil liberties had been violated it would have been made known by the usual suspects.

Dean: SHHH!!!
You're going to disrupt Doug's rampant BDS and he'll wind up crouched in a corner rocking back and forth. Again.
Douf...I mean Doug, wouldn't they just get another moron federal judge like what's her name in Michagan...oh wait, they already did. And that BS has as much traction as barefeet in Jello.
Your side is so pathetic.

Yet another absurdity from Mitch Berg's mouth.

Republicans accept Dictatorships, as long as they are friendly. Which is why they, for example, made nice with the Taliban in May 2001 calling them Muslims we can live with.

Then they promote dictatorships here, stripping fundamental liberties, imprisoning US Citizens indefinetely, denying due process, the 4th amendment and checks on Presidential policy, and when found out, lie about their involvement or attempt to change the law so that the illegal acts are now legal in a reverse perversion of the idea of Ex Post Facto.

Finally, Mitch (aka the prolific distorter) claims that the argument is about whether Iraqis are better off today. Leaving aside that they are in a bloody civil war, the question was never about whether Houssien was bad - outside of course the inconvenient truth that Dick Cheney sold him arms and the Dems criticized it - but rather whether the world and the US is better for having started this civil war. The President and Rumsfeld so thoroughly screwed up planning for what came after an easy victory over a non-threat like Iraq under Houssien, that they dragged us into a hell-hole of their own making.

Mitch, the question is whether this man should be held accountable for being wrong on so many fronts. What Democrat ever said that Houssien is a good guy? The reality is you all loved him prior to 1991 - or at least tollerated his dictatorship - the unbridled gaul and hypocrisy you show is staggering in its depth, and only exceeded by the distortion you now try to perpetrate. What has the President done about Musharaff or the Saud Family? (nothing) Who was it that demanded accountability for Pakistani involvement in both 9/11 and the British plots only to be rebuffed by the President? (the Democrats)

Unbelievable

Doug-
What Dean said. Stop being so paranoid. Every newsworthy event is not a brickbat to beat Bush &Co over the head with.

And precisely why shouldn't we use facts to beat the brains out of this Administration that has so totally blown the war on Islamic jihadism?

They are the ones in power, are the ones accountable. Unlike the distortion from M. Berg, thinking something other than what this collosal bafoon of a President tells you, doesn't mean you're a traitor, or that you love dictators.

It's time for accountability for this disaster, and to have this simp strutting around spewing hate and fear is insulting. He needs to go put himself in Gitmo, for the good of the US. The better question is whether we'd be better off without him in power more or less than as much as Iraq is without Houssien.

Ted - first of all, it's:
1)"tolerated"
2) "gall"
3) "colossal"
4) "buffoon"

Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. It's so hard to read a good harangue from someone so clearly suffering from BDS when these visual atrocities are committed. And, no, they're not typos - because phonetically they were close.

Anyway, as I mentioned, you've got a *really* bad case of BDS. You really should see someone for that. Or, better yet, quit spending so much time with Kos or Jerome or the vicious brats at DU. Really. For all the talk the left puts out about how the right exists on hate and fear, it's usually the left that's spouting the hate and fear.

Lets see----Bush wants to listen into calls terrorists make without a warrent. Democrats mostly cheered when the Supreme Court ruled that the government can take your property and sell it to another private party (Pelosi said it was if God spoke) Most Democrats want to destroy the 2nd amendment. Democrats threaten ABC's broadcast license because they don't like whats going to be aired, Kerry did the same to Sinclair broadcasting.
Now which actions affect me more........hmm

"Democrats mostly cheered when the Supreme Court ruled that the government can take your property...?"

"Most Democrats want to destroy the 2nd amendment...?"

Let me rephrase what I said before..., I would argue that Republicans are just being intellectually dishonest but I'm really starting to believe maybe they really are just idiots.

And thanks for reminding me of the Sinclair flack.

We have one film airing that attacks Clinton - a Democrat - another airs that attacks Kerry - a Democrat and a film that gets pulled that would have portrayed Reagan unfavorably.

Yeah - the liberal media strikes again.

If you really want to know what the Republicans are up to, just pay attention to what they're accusing liberals of doing.

the sinclair movie was whittled down to 20 minutes due to pressure from the kerry campaign --kerry lawyers also threatened individual stations.
the reagan pic was moved to showtime because of pressure from groups--not the government
show me something that indicates that the democratic leadership doesn't support Kelo. Dean is the only one as far as I know who came out against the ruling (because he thought that it was the consevatives--not the liberals on the court who voted for it)
And the democrats especially the leadership do support gun control--live with it

Beth said: "Bush wants to listen into calls terrorists make without a warrent [sic]."

Beth, if it were that simple, there'd be no controversy. But the truth - the verifiable truth - is that the NSA was listening into any calls they wanted to listen into, foreign or domestic, to try to determine whether there might be any terrorist activity going on. If it were a simple matter of knowing already who the terrorists are, and then listening into their phone calls (and their phone calls only) to non-U.S. locations (and non-U.S. locations only), that would already be legal, and all Bush would have to do is get a warrant from FISA.

But he couldn't, because the NSA was listening to domestic phone calls, too. And domestic phone calls to and from people who have not been tried or convicted of anything - and since they didn't bother with a FISA warrant, people who have not even had an independent judicial determination of reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing before someone listened to their phone calls. That means they could listen to anybody they wanted to.

And when the Democrats had the temerity to object to such obvious and blatant violations of FISA and the 4th Amendment, the sad, predictable, and despicable response of the GOP was that Dems are on the side of the terrorists.

If you really believe that kind of thing can't affect you personally, then you're not listening to your own arguments about things like gun control. The Bill of Rights wasn't crafted to protect only the innocent. It was crafted to prevent government abuses, against everybody. If the founding fathers heard today's neo-con "If you have nothing to hide, you won't be afraid of warrantless wiretaps" trope, they would vomit. I assume if you have nothing to hide, you won't be concerned about the police searching your home when you're not there, without a warrant, and without telling you they were there?

I'm vomiting over the concept that your right to watch a TV show might be more important to you than your rights against unreasonable search and seizure. But that's just me.

They were listening in to any old telephone conversation-------and who told you that? They were listening in to calls made to numbers in recovered cell phones and working outwards from there---how may journalists do you suppose were talking to the enemy? The programs that pick up any conversation based on keyword are called echelon and carnivore and have been in existance long before GWB became president. Clinton even used them for industrial and economic spying

Beth -

Way to not actually address the issue!

They decided ON THEIR OWN that they could listen to these phone conversations.

They were not entitled to do so.

If they were, they are also entitled to listen to yours.

Do you believe that because you're not a terrorist, they won't?

Beeeej

Beth said,

"the sinclair movie was whittled down to 20 minutes due to pressure from the kerry campaign --kerry lawyers also threatened individual stations."

The "film" presentation was repackaged and key scenes were shown as part of a "news"program. When watchdog groups, including Media Matters demanded equal air time for a rebuttal, Sinclair refused. When Democratic donors attempted to purchase one hour of air time for a pro-Kerry film, Sinclair refused. After the plans were changed for the film, Sinclair officials claimed that they never intended to air the piece in it's entirety anyway. Company Vice President Mark Hyman contradicted his own board and said that unless Kerry agreed to an interview, the entire film WOULD air.

Now Beth, Sinclair is a publically traded company. They are required by law to increase shareholder value. What they were attempting to do was SO partisan and SO divisive, they were forced to back off because the shareholders demanded it.

"show me something that indicates that the democratic leadership doesn't support Kelo. "

Beth, here's a short quiz. It's only one question.

Can you name a current United States President that once used Eminent Domain to seize private farmland for a baseball statium, used taxpayer money fo finace construction and then made 15 million dollars when the team was sold?

Any guesses Beth?

Uh Ohh... A typo... Better correct it before Kermit has a hissy fit... Stadium not statium

"Can you name a current United States President that once used Eminent Domain to seize private farmland for a baseball statium, used taxpayer money fo finace construction and then made 15 million dollars when the team was sold?"

In January, 1991, The citizens of Arlington, TX, by a 2-to-1 margin, approved public funds for the $191 million ballpark. Unlike Hennepin County, the people in Arlington at least had the opportunity to vote on the matter.

In April that year, the Texas Rangers shepherded through the Texas legislature a bill that created the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority (ASFDA), a quasi-governmental entity that was given the power of eminent domain. Shortly after the bill was signed by then governor Ann Richards (DEMOCRAT), 13 acres of private property were seized for the Rangers' new ballpark, later prompting two lawsuits.

When it comes to Eminent Domain, both parties get their hands equally dirty.

Brad said,

"When it comes to Eminent Domain, both parties get their hands equally dirty."

So Brad, I guess it would be safe to say that Republicans mostly cheered when the Supreme Court ruled that the government can take your property and sell it to another private party... Right?

"So Brad, I guess it would be safe to say that Republicans mostly cheered when the Supreme Court ruled that the government can take your property and sell it to another private party... Right?"

Perhaps some. However, I'm sure many more Democrats cheered the prospects of all those extra tax dollars which would come in from the EEEEvil corporations taking over seized land.

Brad said,

"Democrats cheered the prospects of all those extra tax dollars."

Well Brad, it would be nice to actually pay for some of your party's spending without putting it on the charge card like we've been doing since you guys took office.

By the way, you are aware the Saudi Arabia and China own most of out debt right? I mean, why use tax dollars from US citizens to build infrastructure, schools and provide healthcare to Americans when instead, we can pay billions in interest to Saudi Arabia and China to help them grow right Brad?

Never once have I condoned or endorsed this administration's enormous spending. I'm quite appalled by it, actually. However, increased taxation does not equate to more revenues. Hence, the record revenues collected this past tax year as a result of the ongoing tax cuts.

You are correct in that we seem to be spending it a lot faster than it comes in. Thanks for unwittingly endorsing that we need more fiscal conservatives in Congress!

Brad said,

"Thanks for unwittingly endorsing that we need more fiscal conservatives in Congress!"

Oh Gosh... You sure got me Brad...

Now, if you go back to some of my earliest posts here, I think you'll find that I identify as socially more liberal and fiscally more Conservative.

In fact, I even toyed with the idea of voting for Bush in 2000 because of what he said about nation building. Remember Brad, he was against it... Iraq anyone?

I would be more than happy to have more real fiscal conservatives in Congress but you're not going to find them in todays Republican Party.

incest sisters sex incest post

bbw black lover natural bbw

bbw black lover natural bbw

bbw black lover natural bbw

pussy closeup dripping cum filled pussies

stocking clad ladies black stockings lingerie pics