THERE'S GRATITUDE FOR YOU. . .

So, what are Dougie's thoughts on the latest atrocity in Iraq, where a throng of cheering civilians in Fallujah attacked cars with four civilian U.S. contractors, shooting them, setting fire to the cars, and then hanging the charred bodies from a local bridge?

Somehow, it looks like our efforts to win hearts and minds are going down the tubes and straight into the septic tank at Bush's "ranch" in Crawford. Yessiree, Dougie! Not only have we managed to create an atmosphere where Palestinians dance in the streets when the WTC is bombed, we've now got Iraqis doing the same thing when they can kill and burn American civilians. Evidently they're NOT grateful for our delivering them from Saddam. So much for that claim!

Meanwhile, nearby, another 5 marines were just killed in Iraq.

This never-ending spiral of violence is what everyone was freaked about before Bush invaded Iraq. It was what the Spanish were justifiably worried about when their assinine Aznar supported Bush and sent Spanish troops to Iraq to curry favor with him, even though 90% of Spaniards were opposed to getting embroiled. And the odds are that things in the M.E. are going to get worse before they get better, because Bush handed the haters there a glittering prize when he invaded and put U.S. troops into harm's way.

Before Dougie tries twisting things, this ISN'T a posting in support of Saddam or of appeasement. It's a cry of anguish that the U.S., following blindly the leadership of the dimmest bulb ever to occupy the Presidency, rashly invaded Iraq without a clue about how the Iraqis would react, nor with any plan for how to manage the post-war chaos. Everything Bush has done since has been by the seat of his pants, invented on the spot. Unfortunately, he's clueless about how to make lemonade out of this lemon-to-end-all-lemons. Not that I've got a clue, either! But if I'd been President I wouldn't have invaded Iraq on a vengeful whim, so we wouldn't find ourselves having to figure out how to make a silk purse out of this sow's ear.

Does ANYBODY have any hope of this getting better? Or is the only solution to return Islamic immigrants to their countries of origin and seal off the Islamic nations from the rest of the world for another couple of centuries? I realize that the evil people are the minority in the Muslim world, as they are everywhere else, but the majority is evidently powerless to stop the evil ones in their midst, or unwilling to stand up effectively for what's right, or both. Meanwhile the forces of darkness gather strength in the Muslim world. Witness the collapse of the latest Muslim summit in Tunisia because of an anaphylactic reaction to including words like "democracy" and "reform" in the eventual work product of the meeting. And in the U.S.A, similar dark forces of reactionary religion are doing their damndest to gain control of the government and force everyone to live by their own rigid moral codes. . .

But I guess that can't actually happen because Dougie has said it can't happen here, and everything Dougie says is right. Or "Right." Could somebody pass that candy dish full of anti-depressants? ;(

Well said, Tri!

Not to disagree, and certainly not to take sides with judgments against anyone who is pro George Bush;

This is just an observation that occurred to me as I was reading your post.

I am reminded of the situation in Iran when Jimmy Carter was running for re-election and it turned out that the people who had taken the hostages in Tehran, would not negotiate, much less release them until after Jimmy Carter was no longer president, (in fact they were put on a plane as Ronald Reagan took the oath of office).

It would seem to me (from appearances only, as I have no other evidence to cite) that the situation in Iraq may be swiftly developing into a similar vein. While there must certainly be some Iraqis who are glad Saddam is gone, the ones making the news are the most virulent anti American protesters. It seems logical to assume that some of these are outside agitators sponsored by Al Queda (again nothing in evidence, just an opinion).

However, as long as I am expressing an opinion, the nation that will eventually become the new Iraq should be on notice that the AMERICAN PEOPLE will not stand idly by while their neighbors, sons, daughters and citizens are murdered and dragged through the streets of a land we intended to liberate. Agree or disagree as to whether we SHOULD HAVE GONE,

Fact is WE ARE THERE NOW and if Americans continue to die from violent protest, the citizens of this country may reelect George Bush for no other reason than for spite against these murders.x(

Granted that Doug takes a pretty radically different position than I do, or trilingual does, I don't think we need to personalize the thread about how "Dougie" is going to respond. I mean it's not like he is personally responsible for these atrocities. There are a lot of policies that I support where some Bozo screws up or a plan goes awry. But it is not my fault!

>So, what are Dougie's thoughts on the latest atrocity in

>Iraq, where a throng of cheering civilians in Fallujah

>attacked cars with four civilian U.S. contractors, shooting

>them, setting fire to the cars, and then hanging the charred

>bodies from a local bridge?

A few elementary truths for you, first: Sometimes cars crash. It doesn't mean that I think cars should be banned. Some American colonialists were oppoesd to the revolution against the British crown. It doesn't mean that I think the American revoultion was wrong. The fact that something doesn't work perfectly doesn't mean it has failed.

I don't think anyone thought the liberation of 25 million Muslims in the heart of the Middle East was going to be an easy or casualty-free venture. Are you laboring under the inane impression, as it appears, that because some Iraqis have hostility towards the U.S., it means that the venture has failed? Polls in Iraq demonstrate that they are glad that we waged war against Saddam.

Only a deranged individual - or someone whose only governing emotion is absolute hatred towards the United States - would question whether or not Iraqis are better off, and know that they're better off, with the U.S. war than without it. Guess what, Trilingual? In Iraq, as is the case in all dictatorships, a sizable portion of the population though still a minority - primarily though not exclusively Sunnis - benefitted from the oppression and is unhappy that democracy is coming. One would have to live in complete ignorance to be surprised that some people are unhappy with the overthrow of Saddam. To take then and suggest that a majority is unhappy is truly perverse.

I love how you run around claiming to oppose "dictatorship" whenever you claim it appears in the United States, but if you had your way - in the Trilingual world - the 25 million human beings in Iraq would still be living under the most grotesque dictatorship on the planet, and you'd be sitting on your fat, old ass in Brazil doing nothing about it. Next time you go preaching about how much you oppose American oppression, remind yourself of that.

>Not only have

>we managed to create an atmosphere where Palestinians dance in

>the streets when the WTC is bombed, . . .

LOL! You are such a patronizing racist that you think that Muslims and Arabs are so primitive so that anything bad they do is not THEIR fault, but ours. So Palestinians celebrate the mass murder of 3,000 innocent people, and it is the United States who "created the atmosphere" where they did that.

If a meteor hit the Earth tomorrow, you'd be yapping about how America "created the environment" where the meteor wasn't stopped.

Here's why discussing anything with you is so tiresome and pointless: There is nothing that crosses that "brain" of yours other than hostility towards the United States. That's because you grew up here and failed here. You achieved nothing and became nothing, and so you need to blame something besides yourself for that. You blame the society in which you grew up, and have unbridled rage towards it. That's why you left - it rejected you, so you skulked away angry.

So, as a result, every other country is wonderful and grand, and the U.S. is the root of all evil. But it's not really a geopolitic observaiton you're making; it's just psychological venting about your own failure, masquerading as a political view. That's why you're immune to reason.

A perfect example is the adoration and worship you express regularly for Spain, as though it's the root of all liberty. Meanwhile, in that country, abortion is banned except for rape and incest, and gay people are banned from adopting children. That's not true in the U.S. If it were true, you and your ilk would be screaming constantly about how the U.S. is Nazi Germany because it banned abortion and banned gay adoption. But Spain does it, and you bow down to them while depicting the U.S. as the root of all fascism.

That's becasue nothing you say is really about objectively assessing anything. It's all about the fact that you failed in U.S. and so now you hate it.

>Does ANYBODY have any hope of this getting better? Or is the

>only solution to return Islamic immigrants to their countries

>of origin and seal off the Islamic nations from the rest of

>the world for another couple of centuries?

I hate to tell you this, but radical Muslims hated the U.S. and the West long before Bush was inagurated. Throughout the 1990s, when Bush was NOT the President, they attacked U.S and Western intersts repeatedly. In 1993, they waged their FIRST attack on the World Trade Center; it just wasn't as successful. Our embassies were bombed; other plots against airlines succeeded and some failed; this has been going on for decades, not years.

To blame Bush for this when it pre-dates Bush by decades demonstrates that he is just your America - the symbol of what rejected you, and which you now hate Above All.

> And in

>the U.S.A, similar dark forces of reactionary religion are

>doing their damndest to gain control of the government and

>force everyone to live by their own rigid moral codes. . .

>But I guess that can't actually happen because Dougie has said

>it can't happen here, and everything Dougie says is right. Or

>"Right."

A perfect example of what I was just saying. Over the last 30 years, gay people have made one stride after the next. In the 1970s, homosexuals were still unmentionable. Now, we're talking about gay marriage. Abortion is guaranteed to every person. We have every crucial liberty guaranteed to us and safeguarded. Much of this is not true in the European and other Third World countries that you worship and hold out as the bastion of liberty.

As VaHawk, a pure ideological liberal who actually loves the United States, demonstarted in a recent post, what you and others like you are really about is a profound and deep hatred for this country. Everything you say is nothing but a vehicle for expressing that. That's why what you have is a psychosis, not a political world-view.

>Could somebody pass that candy dish full of

>anti-depressants? ;(

I couldn't agree more that you need them; glad you finally accepted it.

>Well said, Tri!

Can we just stipulate that any time anyone comes here and spews the standard liberal line about any issue, you think it's great and that they did a wonderful job, so that we can avoid having to scroll through the "Great Job! :-)" cheerleading posts?

Can we just stipulate that any time anyone comes here and

>spews the standard liberal line about any issue, you think

>it's great and that they did a wonderful job, so that we can

>avoid having to scroll through the "Great Job! :-)"

>cheerleading posts?

Stipulate, I'd rather masturbate.

Really Dougie, do you want the 'Silent' Majority to stay silent??

>As VaHawk, a pure ideological liberal who actually loves the

>United States, demonstarted in a recent post, what you and

>others like you are really about is a profound and deep hatred

>for this country. Everything you say is nothing but a vehicle

>for expressing that. That's why what you have is a psychosis,

>not a political world-view.

Amazing how Doug, "I'm not a Republican" can never do any more than come here and parrott the Repiglican party line.

Conservatives have a deep and abiding hatred for this country. Look at the shrillness of Doug's posts. He sounds like Ann Coulter and G Gordon Liddy rolled into one.

Conservatives would have kept blacks on the farm and the back of the bus until liberals forced change.

Conservatives are putting forth the Gay Marriage Constitutional Anmendment.

Conservatives, led by John Ashcroft, are assaulting the Constitution on a daily basis to take away our right

Doug's statement however is most truly represented by and applicable to himself.

Aaaahhhhh good fag friends. This argument has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative or even a love/hate relationship with GWB. What the incidents of the last two days indicate is that Iraq is an out of control nation and society whose politics, social expressions and religion are only steps away from barbarism. Burning people to death? Dragging the corpses through the streets? Hanging the dead on the bridge? Say what they want, these poor folks are living in 1004 not 2004!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Peace,

Kipp:(

>What the incidents of the last two

>days indicate is that Iraq is an out of control nation and

>society whose politics, social expressions and religion are

>only steps away from barbarism. Burning people to death?

>Dragging the corpses through the streets? Hanging the dead on

>the bridge? Say what they want, these poor folks are living

>in 1004 not 2004!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The number of people who engaged in that episode is a tiny, minute fraction of the population of Iraq. It's self-evidently abusrd to attribute the behavior of this small crowd to Iraqis and Iraq generally, as you just did.

I recall during the riots following the Rodney King verdict that certain of the rioters dragged Reginanld Denny - who happened to be driving by and who got singled out for no reason other than his race - out of his truck, threw a brick at his head, and then danced around in celebration while he lay bleeding on the ground. Did that primitive behavior lead you to conclude that all black people, or all Americans, are primitive savages?

I don't know why anyone is acting like this is some surprise. It was universally known that the Sunnins in the so-called Sunni triangle would resent the overthrow of Saddam, since they benefitted to greatly from his dictatorial rule. Didn't any of you learn your lesson from Somolia? Running away because of some gruesome though isolated incident does nothing but signal to the world that we are weak and afraid of conflict - exactly the signal that is the most dangerous possible one to convey.

>I don't think anyone thought the liberation of 25 million

>Muslims in the heart of the Middle East was going to be an

>easy or casualty-free venture.

That's because nobody thought we were going to war with Iraq to "liberate 25 million Muslims." We went because we were lied to about WMD and an "immediate threat" against our nation.

>That's because nobody thought we were going to war with Iraq

>to "liberate 25 million Muslims."

Anybody who listened to George Bush's speeches before the war would have known this, since he cited the brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime in virtually every speech he gave setting forth the reasons for going to war. While it may not have been the primary reason, it was certainly a featured part of virtually every speech he gave, as he talked about freedom being "God's gift to every human being" and stressed that this war would bring freedom to the Iraqi people. You should really listen to speeches before you start purporting to tell others what is in them and what isn't.

We went because we were

>lied to about WMD. . .

To tell a "lie" means to say something and know that it is false at the time it is said. To be mistaken about something means to say something believing it's true, but which turns out to be false. Have you uncovered information that demonstrates that George Bush knew that Iraq had no WMDs at the time the war was commenced?

>The number of people who engaged in that episode is a tiny,

>minute fraction of the population of Iraq. It's

>self-evidently abusrd to attribute the behavior of this small

>crowd to Iraqis and Iraq generally, as you just did.

It’s just as absurd to pretend that this was some kind of anomalous behavior. The “minute fraction of the population” capable of this type of behavior just HAPPENED to be in the area at the time? I think it was fairly representative of their culture.

Of course they have an educated, civilized elite, but by and large, they are a fairly backwards and primitive people. Why pretend otherwise?

>It’s just as absurd to pretend that this was some kind of

>anomalous behavior. The “minute fraction of the population”

>capable of this type of behavior just HAPPENED to be in the

>area at the time? I think it was fairly representative of

>their culture.

The town in which this incident occurred is notorious for being a hotbed of pro-Saddam insurgents. It is probably the single most violent and anti-U.S. city in that entire country. To extrapolate what occurs there to a majority of the population is like visiting South Central Los Angeles in 1995 and then proclaiming that what occurs there is typical of the American population.

You can't sit on your fat ass in your living room and watch television images of a particularly gruesome and melodramatized event and think that you're in a position to start characterizing millions of human beings based on that incident.

>Of course they have an educated, civilized elite, but by and

>large, they are a fairly backwards and primitive people. Why

>pretend otherwise?

"Backwards and primitive" is not the same as vicious and savage. People can be uneducated and poor and without modern technology but not think that it's fun and exciting to rip the limbs of corpses and mutilate human bodies and hang them from bridges.

Do you think that such inhumane and vicious behavior is common among the poor and uneducated of the world mereby by virtue of their poverty and lack of modern conveniences?

>To tell a "lie" means to say something and know that it is

>false at the time it is said. To be mistaken about something

>means to say something believing it's true, but which turns

>out to be false.

This vocabulary lesson is valid if we were talking about something on a lower level, like, "I thought those shades were taupe but they were really brown .. oh well, no harm done".

The day Mr. Powell went to the UN to give "definitive" proof there were WMD showed the Bush regime, I mean administration, was sure there were WMD.

Days before Powell went to the UN to present their "facts" Bush over and over claimed their were WMD. Now, at a recent press dinner, he is in a spoof video of himself on the floor in the White House looking for WMD when service men and woman died fighting over this?

>Have you uncovered information that

>demonstrates that George Bush knew that Iraq had no WMDs at

>the time the war was commenced?

Do you have information on the contrary? They thought they did and they were wrong. This isn't a matter of taupe vs. brown.

>You should

>really listen to speeches before you start purporting to tell

>others what is in them and what isn't.

LOL! Doug, you really are funny. Where did I list speeches and "purport" to detail what was in them and what wasn't? :7

>The town in which this incident occurred is notorious for

>being a hotbed of pro-Saddam insurgents. It is probably the

>single most violent and anti-U.S. city in that entire country.

Excuses. I’m tired of making and hearing excuses for these people. In no way am I suggesting that we abandon the occupation, but it’s only because we have passed the point of no return, not because I give a tinker’s damn about the welfare of these people.

You can go on and on about it being a small minority, but I believe it is a sizeable portion of them. There is no way that either of us can know for sure and I’m past caring. They hate us and I say hate the fuckers back.

>You can't sit on your fat ass in your living room and watch

>television images of a particularly gruesome and

>melodramatized event and think that you're in a position to

>start characterizing millions of human beings based on that

>incident.

And your oh-so-better informed sources would be?

And then there's Dougie's blind belief in polls (at least the ones whose results support his warped world view). Like his agonized whining about the election in Spain, where polls indeed showed Bush's lickspittle, Aznar, leading before the election. Polls, of course, aren't always accurate, and in developing nations with little history or tradition of polling they're notoriously inaccurate.

What counts, in the end, are the election results, not the polls. In Spain 75% of the registered voters (a much larger sample than could ever be polled) demonstrated what they felt about Aznar and the PP. In Iraq, we have facts on the ground showing that polls (conducted by whom, by the way?) are misleading. Reasonable people know that, but there's no hope for Dougie. If he'd lived in Nazi Europe in the 1940s he'd have cheerfully marched into the gas chambers, and urged others to do the same, because he'd have BELIEVED what his government was telling him: it was just a nice hot shower after that luxurious train ride in the boxcars!

>What counts, in the end, are the election results, not the

>polls.

Yes, and in Spain -- the country you constantly hold out as the Beacon of Freedom and Liberty -- abortion is banned except in the case of rape and incest, and homosexuals are barred from adopting children. In the United States, abortion is constitutionally guaranteed and virtually no state bars gay people from adopting.

But Spain isn't the country where you failed and which rejected you. The United States is. So you hate it and do anything to rage against it and call it a "dictatorship," while praising every other foreign country (including ones with ACTUAL oppression and tyranny), becuase you're desperate to believe that those other countries won't reject you and cause you to fail like the United States did. Every post you write reflects this self-centered anger you have towards the United States, which really ought to be directed at the party responsible for your failure: you, not this country.

>If he'd lived in Nazi Europe in the 1940s he'd

>have cheerfully marched into the gas chambers, and urged

>others to do the same, because he'd have BELIEVED what his

>government was telling him: it was just a nice hot shower

>after that luxurious train ride in the boxcars!

It's truly tragic how so many Jews have been brainwashed and paralyzed, mostly by their mothers, to live in obsessive paranoia over (said with whispered reverence or screetching whine) "the Holocaust" - the Holocaust - the Holocaust - the Holocaust. Around every corner they see concentration camps, and perpetually see themselves as weak, vulnerable, emaciated victims who live in total fear of unseen dangers. As a result, they hate and fear all things strong and powerful (such as the United States and its military), because they are so immersed in their all-consuming victimology that they basically live life hiding under the bed. Hence, they gravitate towards things which glorify the weak and downtrodden (like socialism) because they think that only things that glorify the weak will protect them and love them.

This one, the one to which I'm responding, has such a severe persecution complex and overriding Auschwitz paranoia that he has actually fled the country in fear, where he sits constructing his life around primitive drives, shrieking at everyone who hasn't fled: "THE NAZIS ARE COMING!!! THE NAZIS ARE COMING!!!!!", and thinking that anyone who doesn't live life quivering under the bed with him must be blind to reality. It's really no different than the bedraggled homeless guy on the corner screaming that the world is coming to an end and we must repent NOW. The version we're seeing here is also constantly screetching and constructing his "life" based on fear about imminent destruction; it's just fear of those NAZIS everywhere, who are COMING!!!, rather than the apocolypse.

I honestly pity that. Go read and re-read your post where you begged for a plateful of anti-depressants. It's one of the most important, and unintentionally honest, things you've ever written.

>>Have you uncovered information that

>>demonstrates that George Bush knew that Iraq had no WMDs at

>>the time the war was commenced?

>

>Do you have information on the contrary? They thought they

>did and they were wrong. This isn't a matter of taupe vs.

>brown.

So your reasoning must apply not only to Bush, then, but to everyone who, based on the same information, said they "knew" that Iraq had WMDs, right? Such as:

Virtually every major Democrat, as documented, below, publicy stated prior to the war in Iraq that Iraq is in possession of WMDs -- NOT that they "may" have been, but that they ARE.

They made these statements based upon their review of exactly the same intelligence reports as Bush had - namely, reports from the CIA detailing the available intelligence.

How can it be, then, that "BUSH LIED!!!" when HE said, based on these reports, that Iraq had WMDs, but the Democrats didn't lie when they said exactly the same thing based on exactly the same information?

Either Bush lied, in which case the Democrats did, too. Or the Democrats were merely mistaken in believing that Iraq had WMDs, in which case Bush was, too. It can't be both:

The Democrats and Weapons of Mass Destruction

(http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0123-08.htm)

WASHINGTON - January 23 - While many have called on President Bush to offer an explanation for his false claims about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, several Democratic presidential candidates have made similar claims. Here are candidate statements made before the occupation of Iraq:

JOHN KERRY: "Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try? According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons ... Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents..." (Oct. 9, 2002) http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0826-03.htm, www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html>

WESLEY CLARK: "He does have weapons of mass destruction." When asked, "And you could say that categorically?" Clark responded: "Absolutely." (on CNN, Jan. 18, 2003). On finding the alleged weapons Clark said: "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this." (on CNN, April 2, 2003) http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-antiwar.html, http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/18/smn.05.html, www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0304/02/lt.08.html>

HOWARD DEAN: "We have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction." (March 17, 2003) www.wtv-zone.com/Morgaine_OFaery/HDean4pres/deantrpswar.html>

JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: "Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." (August 4, 2002) http://www.counterpunch.org/wmd05292003.html, www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59538,00.html>

JOHN EDWARDS: "We know that he has chemical and biological weapons." (Oct. 10, 2002) www.senate.gov/~edwards/statements/20021010_iraq.html>

>Excuses. I’m tired of making and hearing excuses for these

>people. In no way am I suggesting that we abandon the

>occupation, but it’s only because we have passed the point of

>no return, not because I give a tinker’s damn about the

>welfare of these people.

Who are "these people"? The people in Falluja who engaged in these attacks? All of the residents of Falluja? All Iraqis? All Arabs? Who are the people about whose welfare you don't care at all based on this incident?

>You can go on and on about it being a small minority, but I

>believe it is a sizeable portion of them. There is no way

>that either of us can know for sure and I’m past caring.

But polls show that a majority of Iraqis favor the war we waged and are glad we did it. So what is your basis for making these claims about what a "sizeable portion" think, and what is a sizeable portion?

They

>hate us and I say hate the fuckers back.

Some of them do, to be sure. And we should absolutely make sure that those responsible are "brought to justice." But you're raging against abstractions based on emotion. Did you conclude after the Rodney King riots that "these people" hate us, are primitive savages, and we should hate them back? Or did you recognize that those involved constituted only a small minority of black people and their behavior couldn't fairly be attributed to black people generally. What's the difference?

>And your oh-so-better informed sources would be?

From Today's NEW YORK TIMES:

By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN

FALLUJA, Iraq, April 1 — As the rage cooled in Falluja on Thursday and the burned and beaten bodies of four American civilians were wrapped in white cloth, many townspeople said they were torn between pride in the attack and shame over the mutilations.

Many said they supported the killing of four security consultants because they were Americans and Americans are despised.

But some of those same people said they felt embarrassed when mobs tore the bodies apart afterward and dragged them through the streets, turning this town in the heart of the Sunni Triangle into a symbol not only of resistance but of barbarity. The macabre celebration was televised worldwide.

"This is a bad advertisement for everything we stand for," said Muhammad Khalifa, a spare-parts trader who closed his shop during the disturbance in a sign of disgust. "We may hate Americans. We may hate them with all our hearts. But all men are creatures of God."

In the morning, a team of American officials rushed to a meeting with Falluja's mayor and top clerics. American officials said the clerics promised to issue a fatwa, or religious edict, at Friday Prayer to condemn the ambush and the grisly aftermath. One of the gravest sins in Islam is desecrating the dead.

>So your reasoning must apply not only to Bush, then, but to

>everyone who, based on the same information, said they "knew"

>that Iraq had WMDs, right?

No it doesn't because Bush was the only one that wanted to invade a country. Bush did not allow the UN to do their job. The Texas mentality and the Bush mentality is something that Bush could not expect the UN to accept as the UN must work with with global and cultural values in place my hurt Bush's head to think about or understand.

The intelligence reports should not have been Bush's only source of info on a matter this important. Then again, Bush is handled by his advisers and he hasn't made an original decision in years.

To my knowledge, there were no "War Hawks" among the democrats on this issue though there were some democrats who should have questioned the WMD issue a bit more.

>Virtually every major Democrat, as documented, below, publicy

>stated prior to the war in Iraq that Iraq is in possession of

>WMDs -- NOT that they "may" have been, but that they ARE.

But did any of them say to "take Iraq"? Bush's agenda was for reelection and for daddy vengeance.

"Really Dougie, do you want the 'Silent' Majority to stay silent??

The dictatorship continues..."

No don't stay silent, just get off their collective asses and go VOTE! this asshole referred to as Shrub, Jr. out of office. Have you ever noticed that SO MANY people who BITCH about the president and the party in control, NEVER, EVER register to vote and then go out and do so?

I always LMAO! at people who have the audacity to call the United States of America a dictatorship! The USA has been the absolute EXEMPLAR of True Democracy! Even non-citizen foreign nationals have the right to go to the streets and protest, without any fears of retribution, or have you forgotten the unimitigated gall of Iranian students marching in the streets in protest during the Iranian hostage situation during Carter's administration? Do you think they could do that anyplace in the ENTIRE world other than the USA!

If you don't like the current administration, then go vote it out of office, but don't even try to bullshit me into believing that this country is EVEN REMOTELY a dictatorship! The mere fact that you can go vote out an administration and that such an administration is limited to an 8 year regime, ONLY goes to show that this country is nowhere near a dictatorship! On top of that doesn't Watergate, Irangate, White Water investigation, Monica Lewinsky, ad nauseum indicate to you that NO administration is "untouchable" and the fact that our Constitution allows for impeachment refute your "opinion" that the United States is the farthest thing from a dictatorship???

God, just a sore spot with me, but I HATE people who are always bitching about the USA, as if you lived any where else in this world you would not even have the RIGHT to bitch! DICTATORSHIP, THE USA? make me laugh my ass off! Ask the people in North Korea, China, Liberia, Libya, the old Soviet Union, the old communist bloc of Eastern Europe, Chile, Uganda, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Cambodia and countless other countries what a "true dictatorship" is! I'm sure you get my "drift" as your comments on a "monitored" internet board would get you buried in a mass grave someplace!

Well there might not be any Democratic "War Hawks" Trilingual, but we certainly have one on the Message Center!

Our Absolute Ruler King George II is going to show those folks in Fallujah a thing or two, "kill enough of them, and they'll start liking us", has that ever worked? We are go to win so many (more!)hearts and minds shortly, it makes me feel so proud.

Bob Dylan wrote: "You don't count the dead when / God's on your side"

Our smug latter-day empire builders pointedly and publicly state that the number of Iraqis they kill is of no importance to them: they literally don't count. The IPA (Iraqi Provisional Authority) collaborators don't count there dead either - their own fellow citizens.

Violence breeds violence, brutality leads to more brutality.

It's always comforting to see that when all else fails them, the Dougies of the world will trot out their tired old anti-Semitic crap.

So much easier than dealing with their own inadequacies! x(