I have an intense dislike of George W Bush.

[quote name='Ikohn4ever'][quote name='David85']And then, as a war hero, he came back and made fun of the country and everyone else still fighting over there.[/quote]

I think the only people that really comment on a war is someone who actually fought in it. He had the right to protest the war he fought in it, he saw the horrors, and he can speak his mind.[/quote]

I disagree, by that logic someone like Thoreau, Ghandi or MLK wouldn't have a right to talk about the justifications for and against the wars in their times.

However I do think that John Kerry fought for the country he believed in, spoke up for the values he believed in, and was crucified politically for it.
 
[quote name='David85']And then, as a war hero, he came back and made fun of the country and everyone else still fighting over there.[/quote]
:notworth: :rofl:

This is the second time I've had to give David the notworthy facey thingy, despite our disagreements sometimes he nails it right on.

EDIT: I'm know I'm going to regret asking this and it's going to result in another 5 pages of the most half witted, half baked, unsubstantiated half truths I can imagine.... but..... I'm dying to hear your explination of how a decrease in marginal tax rates result in less revenue.

Oh, and find me the transcript where Rush Limbaugh ever claimed 9/11 was perpetrated by Saddam Hussein. I listen to him a few hours a week and with the amount of times he repeats himself I would have caught it. No such claim was ever made.

I'm getting out some popcorn early tomorrow awaiting this response. However I'll have an airline sickness bag nearby for when I read it.
 
A bit off topic, but it does involve limbaugh. On today's show he denounced celebrating martin luther king day, saying we should have holiday celebrations during a time of war. Anyone care to find where or when he denounced christmas, good friday or easter? link

But as for iraq and 9/11, every attempt was made to perpetuate the idea that Iraq was linked to 9/11, but they never said it explicitly because they knew that they couldn't. It is ridiculous to suggest that the administration was trying to project the truth and their message was just innocently misinterpreted by so many people. These people are not idiots (especially with karl rove), they know the message that is most beneficial. Here is an interesting article written by the csmonitor, showing how the myth of a 9/11 and iraq link spread. It states my opinion much better than I can link.

"We learn more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s," Cheney said, "that it involved training, for example, on [biological and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems."
Click to expand...
link

Bush:
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda," he told reporters.

"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda."
Click to expand...

To the average person, the first paragraph is incompatible with the second. And even if they do comprehend the distinction, immediately after denying a link between 9/11 and iraq bush restates the claim of a link between iraq and al qaeda. The first is what is most likely to be remembered, and they know that. Not only is it the most blunt, it reaffirms what many americans already think. link

Even cheney does not find it suprising that people connect 9/11 and Iraq

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.
Click to expand...
link
 
The MLK thing is a joke, in relation to all the lefties saying Thursday's innauguration should be scaled back or eliminated. It's an absuridty to illustrate the absurd.

I read your 9/11 statements and we've rehashed this ad nauseum on this board. I'm not opening that Pandora's box in this thread when we have a perfectly naieve noob to skewer.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.[/quote]

This right here is pretty much the perfect example of the way the administration has deliberately tried to connect Iraq with 9/11, while at the same time, very, very carefully avoided DIRECTLY saying yes. I mean, its a simple yes/no question - was there a connection? Instead of a nice easy "We've seen no evidence of that", Cheney instead spends five minutes trying to use Iraq and Al Qaeda in the same sentence as many time as he can.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The MLK thing is a joke, in relation to all the lefties saying Thursday's innauguration should be scaled back or eliminated. It's an absuridty to illustrate the absurd.

I read your 9/11 statements and we've rehashed this ad nauseum on this board. I'm not opening that Pandora's box in this thread when we have a perfectly naieve noob to skewer.[/quote]

Didn't realize the mlk thing was a joke, though looking at it again it does make sense that it was. I was trying to find a quote where limbaugh directly, or indirectly, said Iraq was involved in 9/11 and ran across that on his website. After that I remembered some earlier comment about bush lied/didn't lie about iraq and 9/11 and I just continued down that path. Though you're right, we finally have something to agree on and we should try to hold on to that for as long as possible.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The MLK thing is a joke, in relation to all the lefties saying Thursday's innauguration should be scaled back or eliminated. It's an absuridty to illustrate the absurd.

I read your 9/11 statements and we've rehashed this ad nauseum on this board. I'm not opening that Pandora's box in this thread when we have a perfectly naieve noob to skewer.[/quote]

Didn't realize the mlk thing was a joke, though looking at it again it does make sense that it was. I was trying to find a quote where limbaugh directly, or indirectly, said Iraq was involved in 9/11 and ran across that on his website. After that I remembered some earlier comment about bush lied/didn't lie about iraq and 9/11 and I just continued down that path. Though you're right, we finally have something to agree on and we should try to hold on to that for as long as possible.[/quote]

Yes I just read through the thread, thankyou all for making me laugh so hard. I was hopeing something like this would occur when he posted.

Oh and OP nice job on digging up a quote from the OTT and using it out of context. :applause:
 
Rush Limbaugh ever claimed 9/11 was perpetrated by Saddam Hussein

He basically said we should believe they were working together despite there being no proof, essentially asking his detractors to prove a negative. How long does Rush keep transcripts (if he keeps any) and are they free?
 
I'm all for rampant flaming and argument on the VS board, but this is ridiculous. Stop feeding this little troll already.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Here's Rush claiming that Iraq and 9/11 are linked.

Iraq was indeed involved in those assaults. There is considerable information to that effect, described in this piece and elsewhere. They include Iraqi documents discovered by U.S. forces in Baghdad that U.S. officials have not made public.
Click to expand...
[/quote]

I almost posted that myself, but then I realized it was from frontpagemag. I still almost posted it, thinking rush supported it, but I then realized that wasn't even rush's website. His actual website is rushlimbaugh.com. I think you're right, that rush did at least indirectly claim Iraq was linked to 9/11, but that's just what I would guess.
 
Makes quackzilla seem logical doesn't he?

BTW: He has stated on his show numerous times about the supposed meeting between Atta and Iraqi intelligence that Czech intelligence reported on. Hasn't done it in years though but he did talk about it. The only other mention I remember is the Boeing fuselage satellite pictures in Iraq and the conclusion made by U.S. intelligence that it was used to train hijackers. The implication of course being that Al Qaeda was one of the groups that came through the training facility.

That's the extent of him trying to connect 9/11 to Iraq that I can recall.
 
[quote name='David85']Yadda yadda yadda, I hate Bush too, I don't make pointless topics about how much I hate him.

If you REALLY hate him then be helpful and load a gun, either shot him or yourself, either way will help.[/quote]

Champion of democracy! If you guy loses the majority vote and electorial vote he must be assassaniated!

Its not funny to joke about that kinda stuff.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Wait so no atrocities were commited in Nam?

Mai Lai was a hoax, and I dreamt about project phoenix.[/quote]

See you don't know what your talking about John Kerry said basically all US soldiers commited atrocities, when that is false.There were indeed atrocities commited but by a hand-ful of service men. Also what John Kerry said at congressional hearings was played to POWs durring NAM and they were tortured even more b/c of John Kerrys words. Msut77 ill gladly send you a copy of Stolen Honor If you would like one.
 
John Kerry said basically all US soldiers commited atrocities, when that is false

Free fire zones, arguably the whole damn idea could be considered a war crime. Even then Kerry took pains to point out the soldiers involved did what they were ordered to do.

No thanks, I got a copy of the Jungle by Upton Sinlair up for grabs though.
 
[quote name='Msut77']No thanks, I got a copy of the Jungle by Upton Sinlair up for grabs though.[/quote]

For this situation, I'd also prefer recommending Norman Mailer's "The Naked and the Dead".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top