In light of the recent invoking of Rule 21...

[cb360]

I believe that Powell was himself duped and he couldn't live with it. The man seems smart and sane and that's why he's no longer with the administration. It's funny to me how many of the warmongers didn't ever fight themselves. Bush of course, ashcroft, cheney, trent lott, santorum, Tom Delay. Pretty much the entire leadership of the party save rumsfeld. Delay actually had the nerve to say, "So many minority youths had volunteered ... that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself." Bwaaaahaahahaha!

The sanctions worked and they worked well. The war was Bush's pet project from day one. Of course the other idiots of either party will fall in line once they see which way the wind is blowing - their main objective is to stay in office. But laying this disastrous war equally at the feet of the dems and the gop is intellectually dishonest to say the least. This was bush's baby despite who voted for it on bad (or even manufactured?) intelligence and history will judge him harshly. None of the other candidates including a theoretical McCain would have beat the war drum so loudly as Bush - not even his own father. In the early days everybody was like, "What the hell does Iraq have to do with anything?" Everyone is looking to share the blame now, but it doesn't pass the smell test. Too bad about all those dead people. You're no more free now than you were three years ago and many would argue you are less so.

[cb360]

Enough said if that's the source. Limbaugh is an entertainer, a D.J. - he has no more qualifications to make political observations than you or me or the dude spinning the Led Zeppelin during the afternoon drive show on the local FM station. That he's taken seriously is more of an indictment of his audience than anything else. Try reading reading something that wasn't put together by a hypocritical pill-junkie trying to get an extra ratings point. Rush is about making money - if you don't think he'd jump off your ship if the wind started blowing a different direction, well, then I just don't know what to say. He was a rich kid who dodged the draft, flunked out of college, and if his dad hadn't owned a radio station he'd be the P.M shift manager at the local Dairy Queen (not that there's anything wrong with that). If the FCC hadn't repealed the Fairness doctrine in '87 we still might have dodged his tripe. That he holds sway over so many people is pathetic and it speaks volumes about the analytical skills of our general population. He's just a bigoted rabble rouser who tells as many who will listen exactly what they want to hear. His NFL commentary was fantastic though - not.

Say what you want to about Rush, but what does that have to do with the quotes? Are you saying these people didn't say these things?

I could selectively mine quotes out of context over a long period of time to make anyone say anything. If Rush put them together I know in advance that they'll slant in a particular direction even if he knows full well that there's additional context that would put the quotes in a different light altogether or that the speaker has since refuted the words based on more current info. It's no different or less preposterous than creationists quoting Stephen Jay Gould as a critic of evolution even though he was it's most ardent supporter until the day he died. The point is if you know what the 'news' is going to tell you before anything is said, it ain't 'news'. Rush is not now and never has been a competent journalist. He sows the seeds of discontent and reaps the ratings. He's a divider and he cares way more about his bank account than he does you or this nation. He's an apparatchik and he'll never be anything else.

[ZooTech]

Well, once again we'll have to agree to disagree. I have been listening to Rush for about thirteen years now and find him to be right-on 99% of the time. Every day for me it's Glen Beck from 9:00am to noon, then Rush from 1:00pm to 4:00pm. If you want to talk about spin or statements being taken out of context, let's talk about the New York Times. To say that all the Dems made those statements because they were lied to but Republicans said the same because they are evil is a double-standard I cannot fathom.

[cb360]

Say what you want to about Rush, but what does that have to do with the quotes? Are you saying these people didn't say these things?

What the hell difference does it make? The only question that matters is 'would we have gone to war with a different president?' The answer to that question is a resounding no. We weren't welcomed as liberators. the cost estimates were a bold-faced lie. The casualties are way more than anticipated. Military enrollment numbers are way down. Our government leadership is a laughingstock the world over - the folks on the hill aren't complete dolts - they want to share some blame now - that's all all these quotes are - more 'talking points' from the puppetmasters.

[cb360]

Well, once again we'll have to agree to disagree. I have been listening to Rush for about thirteen years now and find him to be right-on 99% of the time. Every day for me it's Glen Beck from 9:00am to noon, then Rush from 1:00pm to 4:00pm. If you want to talk about spin or statements being taken out of context, let's talk about the New York Times. To say that all the Dems made those statements because they were lied to but Republicans said the same because they are evil is a double-standard I cannot fathom.

I didn't say that all Republicans are evil and there's certainly a hell of a lot of dirtbag dems out there. I just don't see what your point is by posting a list of selected quotes from people - some of the quotes are 7 or 8 years old by people no longer in office. It's clearly meant to be divisive and it serves no constructive purpose. It's not illuminating in the least. What's the purpose. Are you trying to say that we went to war because the Republicans were convinced by the dems who hold neither the executive branch nor a majority in either the house or the senate? that's absurd on it's face.

[ZooTech]

We weren't welcomed as liberators.

Verify that statement with either an Iraqi woman now able to attend school or a U.S. soldier who's been over there making a difference. The only people not "welcoming" us were the idiot terrorists.

the cost estimates were a bold-faced lie.

It's a war.

The casualties are way more than anticipated.

Do we even need to go there? Must I do a side-by-side with any other war we've ever been a part of to compare casualty numbers? Based on those numbers alone this is the most successful military campaign in U.S. history.

Military enrollment numbers are way down.

That's just flat-out false. Every branch has exceeded expected enrollment.

the folks on the hill aren't complete dolts - they want to share some blame now - that's all all these quotes are - more 'talking points' from the puppetmasters.

It's not about sharing blame. It's about invoking Rule 21 in order to "investigate" the misrepresentation of pre-war intelligence despite the fact that A) four hearings by independant committees have already been held and have found nothing, and B) the very people doing the accusing were saying the exact same thing Bush did, and had been since the Clinton Administration. This is their way of flip-flopping mid-term in anticipation of the 2008 Presidential race.

Well, once again we'll have to agree to disagree. I have been listening to Rush for about thirteen years now and find him to be right-on 99% of the time. Every day for me it's Glen Beck from 9:00am to noon, then Rush from 1:00pm to 4:00pm. If you want to talk about spin or statements being taken out of context, let's talk about the New York Times. To say that all the Dems made those statements because they were lied to but Republicans said the same because they are evil is a double-standard I cannot fathom.

I didn't say that all Republicans are evil and there's certainly a hell of a lot of dirtbag dems out there. I just don't see what your point is by posting a list of selected quotes from people - some of the quotes are 7 or 8 years old by people no longer in office. It's clearly meant to be divisive and it serves no constructive purpose. It's not illuminating in the least. What's the purpose. Are you trying to say that we went to war because the Republicans were convinced by the dems who hold neither the executive branch nor a majority in either the house or the senate? that's absurd on it's face.

No, it's meant to show the hypocrisy of the left. For years and years they preach about the necessity to address the growing concern over WMD's in Saddam's possession yet, as soon as a Republican president comes along and acts on those concerns, suddenly even the mere suggestion that Saddam had anything more than a BB-gun is absurd. And now we have congress locked-up in a closed-session just to add drama to the accusation despite the fact that they've had four chances to prove their case already.

[cb360]

We weren't welcomed as liberators.

Verify that statement with either an Iraqi woman now able to attend school or a U.S. soldier who's been over there making a difference. The only people not "welcoming" us were the idiot terrorists.

You verify it with a non-combatant who lost his arms to a bomb.

the cost estimates were a bold-faced lie.

It's a war.

That's a rather glib response for someone who supposedly cares where his tax dollars go. or do you only demand accountability from one party?

The casualties are way more than anticipated.

Do we even need to go there? Must I do a side-by-side with any other war we've ever been a part of to compare casualty numbers? Based on those numbers alone this is the most successful military campaign in U.S. history.

Again, what the hell does that have to do anything. Does being lied to bother you at all? Either you were lied to or the folks giving out the prewar estimates were incompetent.

Military enrollment numbers are way down.

That's just flat-out false. Every branch has exceeded expected enrollment.

Bull. Don't take my word for it - let's see what the vice chair of the army had to say last month.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01469.html

the folks on the hill aren't complete dolts - they want to share some blame now - that's all all these quotes are - more 'talking points' from the puppetmasters.

It's not about sharing blame. It's about invoking Rule 21 in order to "investigate" the misrepresentation of pre-war intelligence despite the fact that A) four hearings by independant committees have already been held and have found nothing, and B) the very people doing the accusing were saying the exact same thing Bush did, and had been since the Clinton Administration. This is their way of flip-flopping mid-term in anticipation of the 2008 Presidential race.

Well, once again we'll have to agree to disagree. I have been listening to Rush for about thirteen years now and find him to be right-on 99% of the time. Every day for me it's Glen Beck from 9:00am to noon, then Rush from 1:00pm to 4:00pm. If you want to talk about spin or statements being taken out of context, let's talk about the New York Times. To say that all the Dems made those statements because they were lied to but Republicans said the same because they are evil is a double-standard I cannot fathom.

I didn't say that all Republicans are evil and there's certainly a hell of a lot of dirtbag dems out there. I just don't see what your point is by posting a list of selected quotes from people - some of the quotes are 7 or 8 years old by people no longer in office. It's clearly meant to be divisive and it serves no constructive purpose. It's not illuminating in the least. What's the purpose. Are you trying to say that we went to war because the Republicans were convinced by the dems who hold neither the executive branch nor a majority in either the house or the senate? that's absurd on it's face.

No, it's meant to show the hypocrisy of the left. For years and years they preach about the necessity to address the growing concern over WMD's in Saddam's possession yet, as soon as a Republican president comes along and acts on those concerns, suddenly even the mere suggestion that Saddam had anything more than a BB-gun is absurd. And now we have congress locked-up in a closed-session just to add drama to the accusation despite the fact that they've had four chances to prove their case already.

Oh, please. You selectively mine quotes over an 8 year period and all of the sudden the dems were constantly 'preaching about wmds'.[/i]

[oldnslo]

I listened to Rush today for the first time in about 4 years. I'm thinking he's on drugs again. Http://misoldierthoughts.blogspot.com

[cb360]

I listened to Rush today for the first time in about 4 years. I'm thinking he's on drugs again. Http://misoldierthoughts.blogspot.com

that was a nice blog link oldnslo - there's dozens more just like it.

[bennettoid]

No, it's meant to show the hypocrisy of the left. For years and years they preach about the necessity to address the growing concern over WMD's in Saddam's possession yet, as soon as a Republican president comes along and acts on those concerns, suddenly even the mere suggestion that Saddam had anything more than a BB-gun is absurd. And now we have congress locked-up in a closed-session just to add drama to the accusation despite the fact that they've had four chances to prove their case already.

Your right on ZOO tech. But the Bush haters won't ever see the truth.