http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304096,00.html

10/22/2007 6:28:15 PM

Quote :

"Chuck Norris does not vote for president of the United States. He gives the voting machine a swift roundhouse kick and Mike Huckabee wins."

Hahaha finally Fox News gets it right

10/22/2007 6:33:29 PM

He's voting for Huck, B.

10/22/2007 11:09:14 PM

but... what is Chuck's stance on gay rights?

10/22/2007 11:21:59 PM

mike fuckawho???

c'mon chuck.... who the hell is that?

10/23/2007 3:12:24 AM

I like huckabee. I guess chuck and I have another thing in common, besides kickin ass.

no, not really. I cant back that up.

10/23/2007 9:49:47 AM

The whole 'we should stay in iraq for our honor' thing put a huge distaste in my mouth for Huckabee and I haven't been able to take him seriously since.

10/23/2007 9:51:26 AM

I am growing tired of Iraq, like most americans. However, I wont let that be the only reason I ruleout someone. I like his social policies, esp his views on taxes. And I generally like his positive attitude.

10/23/2007 10:16:28 AM

^ Yeah I'd vote for him if he gets the nod just for his tax stance .. even though I disagree on almost every one of his other policies - although most of them are minor issues for me.

[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 11:57 AM. Reason : well tax and economic policy stance]

10/23/2007 11:56:02 AM

well its rare you will find a politican that fits all your views. You just need to determine which one best represents yours. What effects me most is my income. THe more they take, the harder time I have trying to build my own wealth. However, building wealth has somehow become a bad trait in our society and should be punished at all costs by some parties.

10/23/2007 1:32:11 PM

Quote :

"eyedrbI am growing tired of Iraq, "

what?

haven't you been one of GWB's ardent apologists on this board? Defending and rationalizing the invasion/occupation of Iraq, through all its various permutations?

surely you remember: "Saddam has WMDs" ... "Regime Change" ... "mission accomplished" ... "stay the course" ... "war on terror" ... "nation building" ... "fight 'em there so we don't fight 'em here" ... "give the surge a chance" ... "cant let Al-Qaeda win" ...

and now you're "tired" of Iraq?

youre tired? WTF does that mean?

maybe you want to take a nap???








[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 2:26 PM. Reason : ]

10/23/2007 2:24:47 PM

Quote :

"building wealth has somehow become a bad trait in our society and should be punished at all costs by some parties."

I have no problem with wealth creation, though my personal tastes run towards the more spartan than luxurious.

What I have a problem with is profits that are earned on the back of externalities and, quite frankly, war profiteering.

10/23/2007 2:29:40 PM

joe, do you have me confused with someone else? Im the one that cant understand why liberals dont LOVE this man. He is far from conservative.

However, on iraq, it was the right call at the time. I really believe we had to do something and we could not longer "wait and see". We all thought they had the WMDs and we acted instead of choosing to react. I also think its time to start scaling down. I dont think ive changed my positions at all. In fact, I feel the same way about people in this country, If someone wheels you around everywhere, why walk? Eventually you cant walk from atrophy.

And as far as tired, im TIRED of iraq being the end all arguement of politics when we have enough problems at home that we cant discuss because IRAQ is constantly brought up.

The first time I can remember the threat of "Saddam has WMDs" being brought to our attention was from a pres. named clinton. FYI

10/23/2007 2:40:35 PM

and i thought this was going to be about dole's competition in the upcoming senate race being gay.

10/23/2007 2:44:37 PM

Quote :

"However, on iraq, it was the right call at the time."

despite the fact that the majority of ground component general officers argued against invading Iraq, including a number of former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as massively conflicting intelligence about the presence of WMDs?

Quote :

"We all thought they had the WMDs and we acted instead of choosing to react."

No, no we didn't.

Quote :

"I also think its time to start scaling down."

and you base this position on what?

oh right . . .

Quote :

"im TIRED of iraq being the end all arguement of politics when we have enough problems at home that we cant discuss because IRAQ is constantly brought up."

Iraq is no longer politically convinent.

10/23/2007 4:12:29 PM

cash, people with the intel thought they had them, even bill clinton. Hell hillary voted for it. Just because you have amazing monday quarterbacking experience doesnt mean it was a bad call at the time.

I base the scaling down because of the amount of years and money we have spent. We start backing out while they take over control. I base this off of my wheel chair comment, why work when someone is doing all the work for you? premise.

10/23/2007 4:17:03 PM

ahahah, no my "amazing monday quarterbacking experience" is based on the fact that one of my best friends had a class with General Anthony Zinni and I got to listen to him talk about Iraq back in the spring of 2002. I believe his opinion is pretty informed.

If you honestly believe that US or even western intelligence was monolithic in the belief that Saddam had the ability to manufacture and deliver weapons grade chemical or nuclear weapons in the fall of 2002 then you are sorely misinformed my friend. Invasion of Iraq has been a cornerstone of the neo-conservative movement, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld et al in particular, since 1991. September 11th was merely the justification they were looking for.

Even if you buy the fact that Saddam Hussein was close to having effective WMD, Iraq had next to nothing to do with September 11th, Saddam Hussein was not a fan of al Qaeda, and he did not have the ability to deliver those weapons to US soil effectively. None of this brings up the insanely incompetent and shortsignted assesment of the post-war condition in Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion.

Finally, your pathetic wheelchair analogy assumes that Iraqis are perfectly content to have US troops on their soil so long as they provide everything for them and shows a complete failure to grasp the pride that Arabs have in their homeland and the utter revulsion many, if not most, of them have at being occupied by a Western power.

[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 4:27 PM. Reason : .]

10/23/2007 4:26:35 PM

Here is the list of neo-cons and thier thoughts on iraq and wmds.

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"[W]e 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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

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

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

10/23/2007 6:47:55 PM

clever.

10/23/2007 7:55:34 PM

^^ The inability of the Democratic party to grab its collective nuts and stand up to the ill-informed political winds that were blowing places the blame equally on their doorstep, but I find it laughable that you quote politicians as reliable intelligence sources.

10/23/2007 8:47:58 PM

Yeah, here is the video version if you would rather WATCH them say how iraq is a threat and has/developing WMDs.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE


So either we had bad intelligence for awhile about iraq. Or those stupid SOBs in the bush/chaney admin, duped the most brilliant president and his admin? Which one is easier for you to swallow? LOL

In hindsight was it a mistake? maybe, I can certainly agree with the arguement.
However, at that time i still feel it was the right call.

10/23/2007 9:00:10 PM

Madeline Albright has said all sorts of crazy things.

Stahl: "We have heard that a half a million children have died [because of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And--you know, is the price worth it?"

Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

Remember, Clinton and company have plenty of blood on their hands. It's not limited to Bush.

10/23/2007 9:06:00 PM

^^ I can see you're making the presumption that my opposition to the president's policies makes me a Democrat, or at least a liberal. Good luck with that assumption. I am not even remotely a fan of President Clinton, but again you're referencing politicians as reliable intelligence sources . . . showing me a video of them doesn't impress me any. This may come as a shock to you, but politicians like to say things that make the voters happy. I know, its mind blowing so I'll give you a second for it to sink in.

OK, with that out of the way. I will admit, that the information flowing from Iraq was conflicted, at best, but that is the nature of the intelligence business. My critique stems from a statement by former CIA agent Tyler Drumheller:

Quote :

"Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller. "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.""

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/
Of course there is the obvious criticism that this information came from a member of Saddam's government and could easily be falsified. But, again, that is where intelligence comes from.

More from the article:

Quote :

"Both the French intelligence service and the CIA paid Sabri, hundreds of thousands of dollars (at least $200,000 in the case of the CIA) to give them documents on Saddam's WMD programs. "The information detailed that Saddam may have wished to have a program, that his engineers had told him they could build a nuclear weapon within two years if they had fissile material, which they didn't, and that they had no chemical or biological weapons," one of the former CIA officers told me."

I will also refer you to a Washington Post article referencing Porter Goss' letter to George Tenent about weak Iraqi intelligence gathering: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36817-2003Oct2?language=printer

Another article in the Washington Post about the administration's reliance on "Curveball" and his ultimately flawed intelligence: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR2006062401081.html


I am well versed in, and even actively support, the concept of "80% today is better than 90% tomorrow" when it comes to decision making and if I felt that the administration had gone into this war after having looked, impartially, at the evidence then I could pass them off as "doing the best they can." The problem is, that it was obvious to me at the time, to a large portion of the US population (though by no means a majority) and to (it is now being revealed) a large number of experienced intelligence analysts, that the information was cherry picked to support a pre-determined course of action, and that the arrogance of the executive branch has led us to the mess that we're in now.

[Edited on October 23, 2007 at 10:01 PM. Reason : how the fuck did we get here from Chuck Norris?]

10/23/2007 9:57:05 PM

Huckabee has great one-liners, a clear message, and is quite charismatic, but he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected in the general. And he's a Baptist minister--all those who want a Preacher in Chief raise your hands. That's what I thought.

10/23/2007 10:26:33 PM

Quote :

"all those who want a Preacher-in-Chief"

we've basically already got one of those.

that is, except for the intelligence, humor, wit, and divinity degree.

10/23/2007 11:16:18 PM

the pre-determined course of action you keep qouting cash puzzles me some.

Are you saying we wanted to go into iraq, even before 9/11? Or are you suggesting we had plans on invading iraq should the occasion arise? I would think our govt had plans to invade canada as well, should the situation be needed. However, I dont think bush took office with the idea of hoping to invade iraq.

10/23/2007 11:19:02 PM

^^ BTW, you should not have added the hyphens. Did you think I would not notice?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/commander%20in%20chief

10/24/2007 12:36:14 AM