Palin Interview

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are all wrong on this, and history will bear this out. It was the right thing to do, and we made mistakes in execution, so the left politicized it. We make mistakes in every war, there has never been an exception with this.

We can debate what should have or could have happened, it didn't. We took the information we had at the time, and acted on it. We didn't have a Democratic Crystal Ball to tell us all the things we found, after the fact. In light of the circumstances, there was no other option except the one we took, because you always must presume intelligence is accurate. Had Bush not taken action in Iraq, and some other 9/11 type attack happened as a result of an alQaeda/Iraq connection, Bush would deserve to be strung up, drawn and quartered! It would have been presidential negligence on the grandest scale, had that happened. We simply could not take that chance after 9/11.

Our intelligence showed a clear deceptive practice of Saddam Hussein, and the ability and means to mass produce deadly chem/bio agents. We also knew of NUMEROUS meetings between Saddam's cronies and representatives of alQaeda, whether you want to admit that or not. These were facts that have not ever been in dispute, and the 4 independent studies on the whole thing, all confirmed this. Most importantly, we knew, if we didn't stand up to Saddam Hussein, if we allowed him to remain in power, we would have absolutely no credibility in the region, and no means to leverage anyone into helping us fight alQaeda. Even WITH the actions we took, it has been extremely difficult.

I could go through a list of events that have occurred, as a direct result of our action in Iraq, which have been advantageous in helping us with the war on terror, but you are all going to stick your fingers in your ears and incessantly repeat... NO WMD's... BUSH LIED... CLUSTERFUCK... QUAGMIRE!! It's the line of shit you've been sold by ANTI-AMERICAN SCUM!

"Ok Really fucking stupid people believe it had anything to do with Iraq."

No, really fucking smart people understand HOW it had to do with Iraq, and WHY we had to defeat Saddam Hussein. Really fucking smart people, smarter than you and I, understand the complexity of it all, and how it all ties together. The STUPID one, are those who buy into partisan political rhetoric, and don't bother educating themselves.

 

[Fear&Loathing]

You are all wrong on this, and history will bear this out. It was the right thing to do, and we made mistakes in execution, so the left politicized it. We make mistakes in every war, there has never been an exception with this.

We can debate what should have or could have happened, it didn't. We took the information we had at the time, and acted on it. We didn't have a Democratic Crystal Ball to tell us all the things we found, after the fact. In light of the circumstances, there was no other option except the one we took, because you always must presume intelligence is accurate. Had Bush not taken action in Iraq, and some other 9/11 type attack happened as a result of an alQaeda/Iraq connection, Bush would deserve to be strung up, drawn and quartered! It would have been presidential negligence on the grandest scale, had that happened. We simply could not take that chance after 9/11.

Our intelligence showed a clear deceptive practice of Saddam Hussein, and the ability and means to mass produce deadly chem/bio agents. We also knew of NUMEROUS meetings between Saddam's cronies and representatives of alQaeda, whether you want to admit that or not. These were facts that have not ever been in dispute, and the 4 independent studies on the whole thing, all confirmed this. Most importantly, we knew, if we didn't stand up to Saddam Hussein, if we allowed him to remain in power, we would have absolutely no credibility in the region, and no means to leverage anyone into helping us fight alQaeda. Even WITH the actions we took, it has been extremely difficult.

I could go through a list of events that have occurred, as a direct result of our action in Iraq, which have been advantageous in helping us with the war on terror, but you are all going to stick your fingers in your ears and incessantly repeat... NO WMD's... BUSH LIED... CLUSTERFUCK... QUAGMIRE!! It's the line of shit you've been sold by ANTI-AMERICAN SCUM!

"Ok Really fucking stupid people believe it had anything to do with Iraq."

No, really fucking smart people understand HOW it had to do with Iraq, and WHY we had to defeat Saddam Hussein. Really fucking smart people, smarter than you and I, understand the complexity of it all, and how it all ties together. The STUPID one, are those who buy into partisan political rhetoric, and don't bother educating themselves.

It's funny how (in Dixie's mind) when the left points to the incompetence of this administration's handling of a pointless, unending war, they are somehow politicizing it. I guess to say that when the right mentions honor, and patriotism, they are politicizing it too. Right?

 

[Cancel3]

Dixie, of the 4 reasons I listed that the Bush administration has givern, only the first is an acceptable reason for war. And even then it was not enough for an invasion and occupation.

The other three simply are not valid reasons for war.

I understand that there are multiple reasons for a war. But when none of the reasons can stand on their own, you have no valid reason to invade a nation, overthrow the existing government, and occupy that nation for several years.

To put it in southern terms you can understand....

That dog just won't hunt.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Sol... problem is, you only got one of the four partly correct. The other three, you completely misinterpreted because you are either a moron, or you just haven't done your homework. This thread is about Palin's speech, I don't understand why pinheads can't comprehend the concept of SUBJECTS, and have to turn threads into long-ass discussions of something else. What the fuck is up with that? Is it too hard to just start a new thread? Is it some kind of Liberal "gotcha" game? Oh well, while we have hijacked this baby, let's clear up your idiocy...


First the reason was "They have WMDs, and we have to strike before they hit us".

It had nothing to do with Iraq hitting us. Our fear was, Saddam's WMD's would end up in the hands of alQaeda, or any number of other rogue terror groups perusing around Iraq. Such a thing could have meant thousands or millions of deaths of innocent citizens. Your argument is, the president should have been completely indifferent to this, but that is in retrospect, knowing there was nothing there... we didn't know there was nothing there.

Then it was "Saddam is a monster, we have to take him out".

Wrong. Saddam was ALWAYS a monster, and we should have taken him out in 1991. In a post-9/11 world, we couldn't allow him to continue to defy the UN and international law, primarily because to do so, would have said to alQaeda, do whatever you wish, we aren't going to do a damn thing about it, we don't have the stomach. So this reason was always existent, even before 9/11, but afterward, became something we couldn't ignore.

After that is was "We are bringing democracy to the world".

Again, wrong. This condition has been the general principle of the US since our inception. We have the manifest destiny to promote democracy everywhere, always. If you bother to take a look at a globe, you will find Iraq sits right in the middle of where radical Islam is flourishing. Since we can't defeat the ideology of radical Islam with guns and bayonets, there has to be a counter-ideology to replace it, and WE can't implement this, because it simply wouldn't be accepted if we did. So, by establishing democracy in Iraq, it enables Iraqi people to present the counter ideology to radical Islam. No guarantees that will work, but again... you propose we do nothing and allow the radical Islamic ideology to continue to flourish unabated.

And now its "Either you are against radical muslims or we will take you out".

Again... Wrong! this was essentially the 2002 version of the Bush Doctrine. It served notice to these pissant countries like Libya and North Korea, that we are through playing games, we have 3,000 dead American citizens, we are coming after those responsible, and you can either get on board or reap the consequence. Saddam didn't want to get on board, so he reaped the consequence. Again, had we not taken action and did as you advocate, Libya and NK would still be threats, as well as the rest of the nations sponsoring radical terrorism. They would have all laughed at our silly 'doctrine' like they laughed at UN resolutions. Iraq demonstrated we meant what we said, and being it was a 'secular' nation, it wasn't going to inflame the Islamic world to any great degree. It did indeed inflame alQaeda and radical Muslims, which is why they came their and fought us so fiercely.

Sometimes I read some of the anti-war bullshit, and I wonder, do you even realize we were attacked on 9/11? Your arguments all seem to be things that I could maybe accept or understand, had we not been declared war upon by alQaeda. Having to bury 3000 fellow Americans, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, changed things. Just like the attack on Pearl Harbor, changed things! Do you people not get that? And don't come back with the same old shit about Saddam not having anything to do with 9/11, he had to do with defiant thugs we needed to defeat, clearly, concisely, with clarity and resolve. Yeah, sure, we could have sat on our ass and let Saddam continue to make a mockery of international law and thumb his nose at the US, but how would that have served us in effectively fighting the war on terror?

As it now stands, every one of those pissant countries, corrupted by the radical Islamics, KNOWS we mean business, we WON'T put up with their shit anymore. THAT enables more diplomacy than anything else we could have done, which by the way, none of you have had any alternative suggestions.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Thank you for that unbiased and objective analysis. I am sure the McCain campaign was nervously awaiting your 'grade' of her performance. Maybe now that she passed, McCain will let her off her leash more, if her husbands lets her out of the kitchen. I just hope Biden doesn't ask her to spell 'potato' or something at the debates, I am nervous about that.

Hey Mott? In your profound expert political opinion, do you think McCain and Palin have any chance at all, of maybe stealing a few southern states from Obama? I know they have no chance of beating Obama, but if they could pick up a state or two in the south, maybe they could make a respectable showing? Is that out of the question, or is there hope they might be able to sway dumb voters in Mississippi? Your opinion and analysis are so important to me, you know what I mean???

Well considering your one of the right wing partisan hack I mentioned, you wouldn't know what objectivity is if it fell on you.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Dixie, the man posted a fair and balanced opinion. He recognized both sides of the issue.

Your attacks of him show you have no interest in the facts, but choose to be a dick instead.

Fair and balanced? You have to remember, that to Dixie a "Fair and Balanced" point of view is a right wing point of view and a far right wing point of view.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The fact you think he gave a "fair and balanced" opinion, is a testament to what a hack you are for Democrats. Very little about his little rant was even honest, much less, fair or balanced. Let's run down the fucking list of misconceptions...

1. Palin is not on McCain's leash.
2. Charlie Gibson is anything BUT conservative.
3. Every question was custom designed to give Team Obama ammo.
4. Palin looked completely comfortable and confident.
5. Palin answered every question with complete clarity.
6. Nothing she said was "canned."
7. She didn't "obviously not know" anything.
8. She answered the question about Pakistan... three times!
9. She confidently expressed her personal opinion on abortion.
10. All of her answers were full of substance.

He did tell the truth on a few things...

1. She knows Energy policy.
2. She was prepared.
3. Lefties hated it, Righties loved it.

I give Motts evaluation a D- and yours a F+ :lmao:

Spoken like a true partisan wingnut.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

GL, I've got one thing to say....

9/11/2001

Please, enlighten us Dixie....what did Iraq have to do with 9/11? What involvement by Iraq in 9/11 presented a clear and present danger to US national security? Why wasn't this rational used against Saudi Arabia? Why did they drop the ball in Afghanistan? Please enlighten us.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That's where the left is wrong, 9/11 had EVERYTHING to do with Iraq.

We have no evidence Saddam was involved in 9/11, but taking action in Iraq had everything to do with 9/11. Saddam made the choice to be on the wrong side of the two options defined in the 2002 Bush Doctrine, and had we not acted, we would be the biggest joke and laghing stock of the 'alQaeda' world. We would also be in no position to combat the radical Islamic fundies in their own back yard, we would be relegated to 'swatting flies' within our own.

This is a huge chess game, not some silly simplistic notion. Anti-war proponents simply fail to understand the complexities and nuances involved. We had no other choice in Iraq, and we will ultimately have no other choice in Iran, than to take action. We can't defeat this enemy with daisies, as much as I wish we could... ain't gonna happen.

You are right. 9/11 had everything to do with invading Iraq. After 9/11 ignorant rednecks just want to kill arabs regardless of who or what their involvement is 9/11 was.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Yea, and we took out the Taliban, which was a good thing to do. They were the fuckers supporting Al Queda. Saddam had nothing to do with it. Using 9/11 rhetoric is fucking stupid.

Not only were we not justified in invading Iraq, but the action caused us to split our effort. The end result is we have not been able to keep both Afghanistan AND Iraq contained. We have not been able to keep Al Queda contained. We concentrate on one, the other breaks loose. And we don't have the resources to hit both hard simultaneously. Hitting Iraq with a ground war is threatening our mission in both areas, and definitely made our mission in both areas much more difficult than they needed to be. Iraq should have remained a remote target. We should have saved the ground forces for Afghanistan.

Iraq was NOT NECESSARY for a ground war. It has been a cluster from day one. The so-called justifications used by Bush were shit. There were better alternatives, both military and politically.

You hit the nail right on the head. It was the biggest national security fuck up by the US Government since Vietnam.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You are all wrong on this, and history will bear this out. It was the right thing to do, and we made mistakes in execution, so the left politicized it. We make mistakes in every war, there has never been an exception with this.

We can debate what should have or could have happened, it didn't. We took the information we had at the time, and acted on it. We didn't have a Democratic Crystal Ball to tell us all the things we found, after the fact. In light of the circumstances, there was no other option except the one we took, because you always must presume intelligence is accurate. Had Bush not taken action in Iraq, and some other 9/11 type attack happened as a result of an alQaeda/Iraq connection, Bush would deserve to be strung up, drawn and quartered! It would have been presidential negligence on the grandest scale, had that happened. We simply could not take that chance after 9/11.

Our intelligence showed a clear deceptive practice of Saddam Hussein, and the ability and means to mass produce deadly chem/bio agents. We also knew of NUMEROUS meetings between Saddam's cronies and representatives of alQaeda, whether you want to admit that or not. These were facts that have not ever been in dispute, and the 4 independent studies on the whole thing, all confirmed this. Most importantly, we knew, if we didn't stand up to Saddam Hussein, if we allowed him to remain in power, we would have absolutely no credibility in the region, and no means to leverage anyone into helping us fight alQaeda. Even WITH the actions we took, it has been extremely difficult.

I could go through a list of events that have occurred, as a direct result of our action in Iraq, which have been advantageous in helping us with the war on terror, but you are all going to stick your fingers in your ears and incessantly repeat... NO WMD's... BUSH LIED... CLUSTERFUCK... QUAGMIRE!! It's the line of shit you've been sold by ANTI-AMERICAN SCUM!

"Ok Really fucking stupid people believe it had anything to do with Iraq."

No, really fucking smart people understand HOW it had to do with Iraq, and WHY we had to defeat Saddam Hussein. Really fucking smart people, smarter than you and I, understand the complexity of it all, and how it all ties together. The STUPID one, are those who buy into partisan political rhetoric, and don't bother educating themselves.

Keep drinking that kool-aid Dixie....you don't ever have to worry about that cup being empty.