Thursday, June 03, 2004

More Fun with Republicans

The following is an exchange I'm having with a Bush lover who is suffering from the same affliction as W himself. Can't defend your actions? Just attack the other guy....


SO, the way you defend Bush is to attack Democrats?

Well, buddy, I never said they weren't wrong too. As David Kay said, we were all wrong. That's why I'm really pissed that I have to vote for Kerry (except that he's good on the environment, which Bush is a nightmare on). Because he couldn't see what Wesley Clark and Howard Dean could, that this was all a big line of bullshit. That Chalabi and curveball were lying to get us to attack. That Scott Ritter (former arms inspector, Marine, and Republican) was right, that we had destroyed the weapons -- and he argued with Joe Biden and plenty of other Democrats who were also wrong.

As for the flip-flopping, geeze, do you really want me to list all the things Bush said he would do and didn't or vice versa? Steel Tariffs? Creating a 9-11 commission. Department of Homeland Security. Testifying to the 9-11 commission. Condoleezza testifying.

Kerry tries to take nuanced positions on issues. Maybe if I was there looking at all the bullshit evidence, I would have been gung-ho too. Hell, Colin Powell almost had me convinced with his bullshit speech at the UN. So, I think even you could understand that Kerry is trying to say, yes, we should defend ourselves from tyrants who want to hurt us, but we had better be godamn sure about our facts, which W wasn't.

But beyond all that shit, I'd like to know where you right wingers get off just ignoring the fact that these Chicken Hawks are big on weapons systems but short on actually helping the troops. Why did they ever go in without the right body armor or Humvee armor? Why are they running short on ammo?

These guys don't give a shit about the troops. They care most about PRIVATIZING IRAQ, and privatizing a lot of the things the Armed Forces used to do for themselves. So now, instead of having an Army truck driver trained to drive in a protected convoy, we have a Halliburton truck driver making $125,000 a year doing it. Nice use of my tax dollars.

So, not party facts, just cold hard facts.

The fact is that you and your Republican Party friends can't defend Bush so you attack Kerry. Well, you're going to have to dig up more than shit like Kerry wanted to raise taxes on the rich before he voted for more money for Halliburton in Iraq to change most people's minds.

You guys always say you're providing facts that are some how better than ours. It's such a fox new fair and balanced thing. In fact, your facts are more tainted. And, you just ignore the point at hand. That if all these people were wrong about Iraq, then perhaps we should get rid of the ones -- the neo-cons -- who were most responsible for the bad information. And since the neo-cons are pretty much the entire administration, then Kerry is the only alternative.

The fact is, most of you people are supporting Bush because you hate Gays, you hate taxes (even if they're paying for body armor), you hate liberals, you hate environmentalists, and, well, you just hate.

Frankly, I'd like to say, thanks a fucking lot. Now you've taught me to hate too. I hate Bush with all my heart, and I'm learning to hate all you who can't even support him in an argument. Go ahead, defend him without attacking Kerry. I bet you can't.

My comments on each of these quotes come below each one, Joe. My comments are marked with a >>>


Try to Defend these "PUBLISHED" truths !!!

Trying to decide who is telling the Truth..

Lets look at cold hard facts, just about the big issue on the table.. The IRAQ war..

The Democrats say, Trust them, they are right, Bush Lied.
Ok GUYS I believe you, BUT how can I trust you when you also said:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

>>> Which he did.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

>>> Which he did.

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

>>> Still is. North Korea. Ah, shucks, no oil there.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

>>> Since 1982, when Reagan gave them to him and helped him aim them at Iranians.

"[We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

>>> Air and missile strikes. Not a $300 billion dollar invasion. I never understood why Republicans, who used to agree with Buchanan that we should be spending less money here, are so protective of spending more money there. If you're against government spending, then what the hell?

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

>>> Yep. But, what Nancy, and many others, didn’t mention is what Scott Ritter says: we found them all. And destroyed them. The other info coming in was from halabi and friends who stood to get rich if we would go in and overthrow Saddam.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

>>> Wow. Sounds like what Bush is doing.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

>>> Yes, but how do you go about dealing with it. Do you keep waving the big stick and send in more inspectors? Or do you kill and maim thousands of people, piss off the rest of the world, and make your buddies in the oil business richer?

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

>>> Wow. He's just as wrong as Bush. How does this make Bush less culpable?

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

>>> Wrong, just like W. But I doubt if Gore would have wasted billions and over 800 American lives on this adventure. I bet Gore would have put this much into Afghanistan, you know, to find the people who really attacked us on 9-11...

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

>>> Again, wrong. Amazing, both sides of the heavily financed political spectrum were wrong. Again, how does that make W less culpable? You think Gore would have outed Valerie Plame when Joseph Wilson discovered the Niger uranium lie?

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

>>> And the inspectors were finding them and destroying them.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert! Byrd (D , WV), Oct. 3, 2002

>>> Completely false. Hans Blix was kicked out of Iraq in 2003, while he was still looking.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

>>> What the hell good are inspections if you don't have the use of force threat to back it up? And Kerry, or any of the others who voted for the resolution, were given no idea that Chalabi's evidence was so shaky, or that W would actually fuck this whole thing up so badly, all the while cutting veterans benefits and relying heavily on reserves and national guard people to kick in doors in Baghdad, which they're not really trained to do.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

>>> Again, wrong. Where do you get off with this shit? These people were all wrong! How does that make it OK?

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

>>> A lie. From a decent man who is trying to get to the bottom of Cheney's Halliburton bullshit. But, hey, nobody's perfect.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

>>> Of course, like W, she doesn't offer any proof. Hell, she was pretty much just repeating what the administration had just told her in committee meetings.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

>>> Capacity. Yeah. And those mobile labs were helium trucks.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

>>> Disarm. Not regime change.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of this, because if you know anything about how the senate works, you'd know that Senators often switch their votes on things, in order to change them into something they like. They often vote against something only when they know it's going to win, so it plays better at home. And all kinds of basic politics like that. But for Bush lovers to be saying Kerry's a flip-flopper, when anti nation building Bush is spending my grandchildren's tax dollars on Iraqi pipelines and electric grids and schools, while ours are falling apart, well, it's just the height of hypocrisy. Kerry wanted to increase taxes on rich people to pay for this fiasco! Bush wants to borrow the money and pay it back with interest, so it's even more expensive in the long run. You want to tell me, like Cheney did, that "deficits don't matter"? Ah, how quickly Republicans will throw out their long-held beliefs to make a buck....

Typical. You just assume I'm some kind of party hack. I'm just as pissed at most of these Democrats, including Kerry. But I believe Kerry has a history of working in a bipartisan manner like he has with McCain. And I think the fact that he thinks about things before rushing in is a good thing, especially when so many lives are on the line.

No comments: