DaVinci

Sort of. The real problem was that there was significant evidence of WMD's. The UN also thought there was a threat. Enough so that the UN voted to use force. Also, several Democrats thought Saddam was a theat. So please, lets not get off on a tangent here. The ONLY difference was some wanted more time than others. I personally feel 13 years was long enough to provide proof. It is a shame that he did not comply fully (And you can claim he did comply, but it is pretty clear he never complied fully). We could have saved tons of lives. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And while I can understand how some may think that. Saddam did infact support terrorist (paying the families of dead suicide bombers in Israel). I personally think the Saudi family had much more to do with 9/11. However, that does not make Saddam less of a bad guy that supported terrorists. It can not be won. It is in fact impossible. The best you can do is contain it. Ignoring the danger led to WTC 93, Beruit, Cole, and 9/11. So the problem is, do you ignore it while they continue to attack? Or do you fight back and increase the hatred and attacks? In both cases people die. I would think that we as humans have learned that you can not stop violance done in the name of a god. Religious extremists will use God , and the return attacks, as a reason to kill more. It is as some say, a self propagating problem. I personaly think the best answer is to fight back. Otherwise you just die in place.

WOW, so all conservatives all NAZI's? I am guessing, but I think you must lean left.

How does a black mind differ from a white mind? The thing with education is that there is a standard set. People must meet that standard to get good grades. So you are saying that blacks can not do the same type of adapting that whites must do? I know several people who come from other countries with different lauguages and different cultures. Yet they manage to adapt to the "white way" of thinking. I think the most racist comment I have ever seen was the one you just typed.

Oh I see. Others insulted you, so its OK to attack me when I didn't attack you? I made a post not even addressed to you, and you attacked me for it. Here are your words. "Dam, finally an expert!!!! Tell us more People like to make statements like the one at the top thinking they are so sharp in the assesment no one can dare chalenge them.........sad really........ " So its OK for you to attack me when I have not attacked you just because you feel wronged by someone else? Well that about as perfect an example as the problem I talked about. You didn't like what I wrote. And even though it was not directed to you or hurt you at all, you felt free to attack me. And THAT is exactly what the Terrorists do. Nice job!

All I saw was you attack me and bring nothing to the table.

It is more than just Iraq dude. There were terrorist attacks before Iraq. It only takes a small group to start a war like this. A group of extremists bomb a school. The government attacks back. Even if only those guilty of the terrorist attack were killed, someone would say it was wrong to attack back and would turn into a terrorist themself. Religious extremists started it. Ignoring them did no good, attacking back did no good. So what would you have done?

No but nice try. I said: Which is what I said. Then I added OBL in since he mentioned the act itself, and Clinton by name in his letter. And some here said the whole BJ and scandle was nothing and did no harm. It in fact just added fuel to the fire to the extremists about how morally corrupt the US was. Get real. I didn't try to justify anything. All I did was show how OBL used it as a reason to prove to some that while they say the whole BJ and him lying thing was nothing, it was infact used as a reason.

Really? It made a good portion of the world wonder why we had a guy that was so willing to lie about something so small in the Whitehouse and do nothing about it. Fro Bin Ladens "Letter to America" that he wrote to explain the 9/11 attacks: " You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object. Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment" Gee you are right, Clinton did no harm at all.

I don't see you add anything to this discussion but attacks. I also do not see you challenging it. I do not see you bring anything to this but attacks and a know it all attitude. You just claim to know better than everyone without any proof. Next time you feel like acting superiour, bring facts or even opinion, not just attacks.

Yeah it amazes me how people forget about that stuff. Will we win the war on terror? Nope. Its impossible. You can not fight a extreme arm of a religion without pissing off the moderates of that religion to the point that they become extremists. However, you can not also ignore the issue. OBL's letter to America spells it our clearly that the only way to prevent attacks is: 1. Destroy the Jews. "You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there" 2. Submit to Muslim rule. "The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam." 3. Live a life following the tenants of Islam. " You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them. You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object. Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment" 4. Americans seemed to invent AIDS BTW "And because of all this, you have been described in history as a nation that spreads diseases that were unknown to man in the past. Go ahead and boast to the nations of man, that you brought them AIDS as a Satanic American Invention" Final notes from OBL "If the Americans refuse to listen to our advice and the goodness, guidance and righteousness that we call them to, then be aware that you will lose this Crusade Bush began, just like the other previous Crusades in which you were humiliated by the hands of the Mujahideen, fleeing to your home in great silence and disgrace. If the Americans do not respond, then their fate will be that of the Soviets who fled from Afghanistan to deal with their military defeat, political breakup, ideological downfall, and economic bankruptcy. This is our message to the Americans, as an answer to theirs. Do they now know why we fight them and over which form of ignorance, by the permission of Allah, we shall be victorious?" So as you can see there is no way to make him happy. Also as long as we strike back we will create more terrorists. But if we do not strike back *WE WILL STILL BE ATTACKED* until we start to follow Islam. So like it or not, this was going to happen. The ONLY answer is for the standard of living and the level of education to be so great in the terroist rich countries that people quit to be willing to die for religion. I really do not ever see that happening. Saudi Arabia is one of the richest countries in the world and yet most of the 9/11 terrorists came from there. Please, if you think anything else google Bin Ladens "Letter to America" and read it for yourself. He makes some very good points. But over all he is a nutbag trying to justify a Jihad.

Yep Reagan was great.

Don't forget nuclear war drills. Ask a kid today if he thinks a nuclear war could happen.

Exactly, and only what they need. Ever see the "Daily Show"? They take interviews and edit them to make the person look stupid. No, but if I quoted Hamlet it had to have been in the proper context or my Professor would have killed me for it. Yes he said he thought he was going to die. But he also said he did not regret it and gave his reasons. That did not fit the Times's article so they left it out. If I had used "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." Hamlet (I, iv, 90) to show that the streets of Denmark smell bad due to grabage collection, well I would not pass. Context is everything.

If you will notice I said "maybe you". That inferes maybe you would, but it also allows maybe you would not. I do not see that as saying you would do anything at all even. The fact still stands that SOMEONE will claim one way or another that the Government failed no matter what happens. You are saying that Bush is wagging the dog. I bet others think he is not doing enough. Standard day, same bullshit as normal in politics. That was my point. Sorry you took offense.

This pandemic has been talked about a good bit. You can claim that the speech was to "Wag the Dog" if you like. But the simple fact is that if he had NOT talked about it someone, maybe you, would have claimed he is ignoring a big problem. People who are that closely watched will get in trouble no matter what they do. If this pandemic does happen, people will say he didn't do enough. If it does not happen, people will say it was just a diversion.

Yes, but that is not race or religion specific. I have met assholes from all walks of life. Good behavior is the result of proper upbringing. Something that is terrible today no matter what color a persons skin is. PC in theory is great. Treating people based on who they are, and having tolarence in the differences. However, it often seems that "PC" is most times used for everyone but white people. For example. The Wayens brothers made a movie called "White Girls". In that movie black men dressed as white women. It made fun of white women. Was that PC? Could that movie been made with white men dressing as black women and making fun of them? "Greenfield explains his use of blackface icons this way: "These images have haunted us for a very very long time -- unless we exorcise the demons that these images have conjured up, we'll never really be free." And in some ways, he says, the crude and outlandish images and behavior that typified the minstrel show are still evident in hip-hop and black comedy. "They're bagging and sagging -- they got the hats turned around, they got the whole thing," Greenfield says." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1919122 So its OK for Blacks to make fun of Blacks. Its OK for Blacks to make fun of Whites. However, comedy based on Whites making fun of Blacks is racist. "Initially, blackface performers were part of travelling troupes that performed in minstrel shows. In addition to music and dance, minstrel shows featured comical skits in which performers portrayed buffoonish, lazy, superstitious black characters who were cowardly and lascivious, lusted after white women, who stole, lied pathologically, and mangled the English language." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface How is that different than many of todays shows? I just saw a skit on MADTV where a black talkshow host was only interested in if you had "Hit" famous women. The problem with PC I think is that it only seems to work one way. I personally find shows like "White Chicks" to be racist. I also find them to be funny. The difference is that if I got upset and tried to start troube over "White Chicks" no one would listen to my concerns. However, imagine the audience for the lynching of the White comics that dressed as Black women and made fun of them. That is the problem with "PC". Until the day that either both situations are OK, or both are taboo...PC is nothing more than a word that is used when people who are looking to start trouble.

Pops jumper said it best in a post just a few up from yours. And playing the religious persecution is wrong as well. Only people with an agenda and trying to see religious persecution will find it in this story. If the area remained open to the public, I could see it. Or if they put a big "No Muslims" sign there. But in this case it seems to be a security issue that was larger than normal due to Bush41 being there.

I think anything taken to extreme is bad. And yes that includes religion and skydiving. I would think most would agree that extremists are anoying. I find the extreme in anything to be anoying. My favorites? People who claim to be ecco friendly but don't show it in their deeds. People who claim that places like Walmart are bad, but at the same time have houses filled with stuff made from China bought at other shops. Religion is like noise for most people. The level up to and including mine is OK, anything else is too much. But I see this more as a case for people being in an area that should have been marked off limits before, but since Bush 41 was there it recieved more attention.

I would like to think that if ANY group of people started to stand in an area that was "Sensitive" that the same action would have been taken. The fact is that area has now been fenced off makes me think that any group standing there would ahve been asked to move. I have in my time met some religious fanatics (From all religions) and when they are praying ect they can at times be quite stuborn. Fact is we do not know what happend other than what has been written. And like I said that area has now been fenced off, so I tend to think it was more standard securty, and not racist. Of course some people will only see race as the main issue. And that includes people from both sides. I see it as a security issue.

The problem with sources in the news about a news story is that the news will make something important even if it is not normally. The news people know a large portion of the readers WANT a story that hints of the Administration being involved in illegal activities. So they will feed them exactly that. Now I never said that he should get away for his crimes *if he is guilty*. But I have said I wish he gets the same deal that Clinton recieved for the same thing. Thats called "fair". Did you see me once say that Libby should get off? No, you cannot find that. I just pointed out, as you have, that it is interesting that the same people who defended Clinton lying under oath are quick to ask for Libby's head (and Bush's). YOU took offence to me saying that Libby is a nothing. All you have done is provide links about this case where they claim that he is important. Well thats what the news does. If you knew more about politics, and what an aide really does you would find it as funny as I do that people think he was powerful. But enough of this, you and I seem to agree on everything except Libby's power level.

Knowledge of a system of government. You claim to know alot about me. How do you know I have never heard of him before? Who said I am? I have said I hope that if guilty that he faces more punishment than Clinton. My whole post was that I found it interesting that the same people who defended Clinton and claimed that the right was after him are doing the same thing now and starting more trouble over a lesser fiqure. YOU debated the extent of Libby's power. It is safe to say that it is in fact less than Clintons. As soon as you quit to claim to know me, you will get the same in return. That and "No one died when Clinton Lied!" are two very left sayings. No but you apply justice fairly. This is the basis of all race problems. You have to apply justice with an even hand. something you seem to be unwilling to do. And it was a crime when Clinton did it, and he was found guilty. Libby has not yet been found guilty, and his level of power is nothing compared to the last guy that lied under oath. I also don't see you up in arms about Berger. I would think stealing classified documents would be right up there as well. And he lied about it at first, then said it was a mistake, then finally admitted to it. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/ I would put Berger higher on the political scale than Libby. But you are still hunting anyone in Bush's camp while defedning anyone on the left.

Wow for a moderator you sure like to start trouble. Wow, nice assumption there Moderator. Did I ever say it was not a serious crime? No, in fact I did mention that Lying under oath is bad. I did mention that you guys defended Clinton like crazy, but want this guy to hang. You have accused me of several things without any facts. I do not have a history of posting on this site, and the first time I do post,I get jumped on and attacked by A MODERATOR. Seems to me that a guy that is supposed to keep the peace should not be the same guy that starts shit.

You can keep exagerating how much power this Aide has if you like. You can even keep finding biased sites all day long that tell you what you want to try and prove. The fact will always be that this guy is nothing in the political world. If it were not for the Left wanting to try and damage him in the hopes to try and drag anyone else down in this Administration it would be another nothing. Just like when Starr went after Clinton for a blowjob. Again, the blowjob I don't think most care about. It was the fact that the President lied under oath about it that wa the big deal. Of course the left thought it was nothing, but are quick to jump all over some Aide to a Vice President to try and gain political ammo. You have a guy that is reported to have outted a CIA agent whoes husband had refered to her as his "CIA wife" at parties. You have to look past the agenda of a political party to see this is nothing more than a lame attempt to try and hurt the party in power. It seems you are unwilling to do that. If Libby comitted a crime I am sure he will be found guilty. I also hope that he gets punished along the same lines that the last major bull shit witch hunt AKA, Monica Gate. It is amazing how you can glaze over the past BS and rally around this one since it fits your agenda.

It would go just like Social Security. Both sides would fight over that money and it would be squandered. The best solution is to reduce the number of people born into poverty...any other fix is nothing more that poor bandaids or political weapons.

He is still a low level aide when you compare to the President himself. Libby is an AIDE to a VICE President. While thats more power than you or I have, its really not much in the political system. What I don't get is how the left can scream, "Its all Bush's fault." While at the same time defending Clinton's perjury. also from your first website:" Irv Lewis "Scooter" Libby - White House adviser, mystery novelist, and neoconservative guiding light - has been one of the most important men pulling the levers behind the Bush administration. Libby, who has held more titles in the Bush White House than can fit on a business card, served most prominently (until his resignation today) as vice presidential chief of staff. From the very beginning of the administration, Libby has essentially been Dick Cheney's Dick Cheney - an odd combination of H.R. Haldeman and Harry Hopkins, seemingly managing every detail of the vice president's professional life" But also: "Every day we challenge conservative thinking that undermines the bedrock American values of liberty, community and shared responsibility." That does not sound like a "Balanced" source. Sorry, but you are going to have to do more to show that he was more than just an "Aide" to justify one side trying to blame the President for his actions when they defended Clinton.