Senate Confirms Rice As Secretary of State

So now you are saying Bush is omniscient. Get your story straight-is he stupid or all knowing? He can read and rehearse the speech all he wants, but he has to trust that the information he's been provided is as accurate as possible.

-Kiamat Dusk
I was stereotyped as a "blind lackey" by people of tolerance and diversity.

Preserves who's life? If we had never invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, we would have preserved lives. Is that your preferred course of action then, Chip? I guess your answer to my question then is-as many as it takes to keep us from going to war.

-Kiamat Dusk
Unrepentant patriot

If you read what I said, it was prefaced with an "Even if.." as I was trying to demonstrate that if we are to believe for even a second your excuses for his dishonesty and corruption, it will still point to him being totally incompetent.

And did you not hear the part about, "..even after he was told that the rumors were proven false.."?

So basically, you believe that he can say or do whatever he wants, as long as he has someone to point a finger at and blame?

And there is a big difference between not being omniscient and being the most corrupt and dishonest President our country has ever seen.

I don't even ask that you believe me, only that you look them up on your own. He has lied and lied, he has broken the law, he has started a war of agressio n that has cost thousands of lives, and has been shown to be ever-so-corrupt. It's very easy to see and very easy to find. Just open them peepers.

David, all the other Lefties have been providing links and quotes and other things we commonly refer to as "evidence". Until such time as you can provide some of that, all you have are empty accusations. While that may be fine when surrounded by your fellow "Bush can do no right" Liberals, that doesn't fly when you've got an informed Conservative in the mix.

-Kiamat Dusk
...will think of a witty signature later...

Oooooooooh! When can we meet him or her? I'm quite looking foward to that!

I'd love to discuss something with an informed conservative. And believe what you will. Ignorance is often times bliss, so no doubt you will sleep soundly, with a smile on your lips.

Awww..no fair..Kendra beat me to the punchline..

Kendra, your idea of what makes an 'informed conservative' is somewhere between McCain and Lieberman. When I say 'informed conservative' I am referring to someone with enough of a grasp on reality to actively refute the wild accusations from Liberals like yourself with evidence rather than rhetoric and personal attacks.

C'mon now, Kendra, such retorts are beneath you. Frankly, I'm disappointed as I've come to expect more from you.

Evidence that you have continued to ignore in all your posts afterwards.

You are correct. We should never have invaded Afghanistan... because we should never have put the taliban in power or had bin laden on the CIA payroll.

At least this liar will be serving 6 days less than Colin Powell did.

::::Go, Chiiiiip, It's yer birthday!::::::::::Go, Chiiiiip, It's yer birthday!::::::::::Go, Chiiiiip, It's yer birthday!::::::::::Go, Chiiiiip, It's yer birthday!::::::::::Go, Chiiiiip, It's yer birthday!::::::

LOL. At least one, maybe?

Wow...so we should attack everyone becuase by pergatory they could very well all be out to get us.

I'll bite though and say that it would be reasonable for the US to attack Iraq if Iraq were to attack the US or was known to be planning an attack (by known I mean evidence supporting an attack which there was none). Iraq was not planning an attack on US soil nor did they have a hand in 9/11 this is known. I would also say what is stopping other countries from having the same philosophy towards the US that you seem to hold so firmly? What if they all got together and said you know what the US is attacking other countries and we may be next so it would be in our best interest to execute a pre emptive strike to ensure that none of our nationals have to be sacrificed in this open ended war where everyone is an enemy. After all isn't that what you are suggesting we do in an effort to ensure our own safety at the expense of the world.

Let me put it to you this way....If I am shopping at the mall and I happen to see someone who I knew from highschool was a local bully but I havn't really heard of him bullying anyone in the past 12 years, should I immediatly walk up to him and knock him out just because I fear that he may decide to hit me? No, I would go to jail. I cannot just hit someone because I know that they have hit people in the past and even if I would rather get in the first strike than stand around wondering if that person is going to hit me.

There was not one Iraqi terrorist on any of those planes on 9/11. There were however Saudis and Egyptians, so let me ask you something: Why are we not attacking Saudi Arabia or Egypt seeing as how so many terrorists seem to hail from those countries? Why, with the preponderance of the evidence in no way suggesting an Iraqi hand in the attack did we choose Iraq as a target country, when the nationality of the attackers and the base country of Al Queda were all so glaringly apparent, would the president decide to attack a sovereign nation which was not involved in the 9/11attack?

Personally, I think folks on both sides of this issue are more full of shit then my diapers. The leftists blindly believe the propaganda from the anti-Bush front, and the rightists do the same with the pro-Bushers. There is so much untruth coming from both sides that the truth is buried in bullshit. Bush IS probably stupider than he is evil. Makes a better puppet that way. And, the most corrupt president ever? Perhaps. But, Clinton was no saint. And Whitewater was just one of the issues that coulda brought him down. Presidents have been breaking the law regularly since as far back as Kennedy at least. Face it. With the way American politics works nowadays, it attracts the corrupt. No matter who is in power there are always gonna be these kinds of issues, and negative propaganda on both sides of the street. We, the public, will rarely hear the truth of what goes on.

Kiamat, you make good points - I find that many Bush-bashers simply throw everything they can at Bush without bothering to clarify or revise their position. However:


I would agree that the case is either that Bush lied or Bush made a great deal of mistakes in the moving forward with the way. From all I've seen, he's not a liar, he's just let his cowboy attitude make him shoot first, ask questions later.


Science? Science?
The aluminum tubes that were presented to the UN as "proof" that Saddam was buying materials for "a nuclear centerfuge" was in fact, the exact grade and dimentions for a mid-range missile that Saddam produced. In a study done by about 15 nuclear scientists, all but one agreed that the aluminum was the wrong grade and dimensions and could never be used in a nuclear centerfuge. Bush chose to listen to the two sole dissenting scientists rather than the overwhelming majority.

But this is nothing new, Bush does the same with environmental protection in the dozens of rollbacks of environmental policy and his continued refusal to sign the Kioto Treaty. He also chose to ignore scientists' goal at NASA when he suddenly changed course and announced we were heading to Mars.

2 days before the war, Bush definitively states why he must go to war:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
"The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other. "


Anytime Bush speaks, the preparations are immense, from security to speeches to what he wears. Every aspect of it is planned by the white house. Even if, IF, the ship did it, Bush's administration chose to make it as the background of the speech - the message they sent to America was loud and clear.
And if you think otherwise, I recommend asking anyone in the advertising or television industry what they think.

Now, personally, I was a Bush fan, until he started making his dozens of mistakes. I thought we were on a good course in pressing Iraq, but it's clear it was rushed, based on bad intelligence and without a solid plan or unilateral support from allies (and I'm not talking Germany or France or Russia - I'm talking about how the US has provided 90% of troops and the HUGE budget for the war)


Funny, America was attacked by a Taliban-backed Al-Quaida, NOT Saddam. The 9/11 Committee reinforced this in their findings. So you tell me why Bush pulled out all his Arab-speaking experts and much of his special forces out of Afghanistan, where we believed Usama bin Laden was, to fight in a country that had never attacked us?

Sure, the Iraqi people needed to be liberated - but look at East Germany, USSR, South Africa, India - great examples of how people can rise up and take their freedom without a country having to invade and blow things up.

You are on the street. A man sticks something in your back and claims it is a gun. If you turn and kill the man, does it matter if he actually had a gun or not?

We are not attacking Saudi Arabia and Egypt because they are not HARBORING terrorists. They are routinely rooting them out and going after terrorists themselves. However, I agree that we need to put more pressure on these countries to disallow some of the practices conducive to breeding terrorism to exist in their countries.

-Kiamat Dusk
Harshing the Liberal high

East Germany and the USSR were freed, not by their own people, but by the collapse of Soviet communism in the face of an arms race they simply could not win. (thanks, Ronnie!)

-Kiamat Dusk
Recycling past signatures is good for the environment