6 Responses

1. 

   1)

   johnhp said on 7/15/2004 @ 9:05am PT: [Permalink]

   Brad,

   i think youre playing unfair expecting the man to keep up with his lies is a bit too much for his meagre abilities. But given the cognitive dissonance operating in the republican party i will offer you three quotes:

   New figures released yesterday by the Bush administration show dramatically higher terrorism casualties last year than the State Department documented in an April report that U.S. officials heralded as evidence of great progress in the battle against terrorism…
   Incidents climbed dramatically in the Middle East, especially in Iraq. Attacks claimed dozens of victims in Israel, the Philippines and India. Thirty-five Americans died, all overseas. June 23

   "Credible reporting now indicates that al-Qaida is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the U.S. in an effort to disrupt our democratic process … ," Ridge said. "We lack precise knowledge about time, place and method of attack. But along with (the CIA, the FBI) and other agencies, we are actively working to gain that knowledge." July 9

   ""Today because America has acted, and because America has led, the forces of terror and tyranny have suffered defeat after defeat, and America and the world are safer." July 12

   Remember that game on the electric company? One of these things is not like the other?

2. 

   2)

   Paul said on 7/21/2004 @ 5:25am PT: [Permalink]

   Saddam did not obey 17 UN resolutions. Iraq 2003/2004 was just a continuation of Iraq 1991.

   Both statements from the webpage are not false. This has been going on since 1991. No re-writing of history here.

   We are still technically at war with North Korea. Once a nation breaks the cease-war agreement, war can begin again. We still have troops everywhere in the world so the troops in Iraq are not going anywhere anytime soon. You guys apparently do not understand cease-war agreements.

3. 

   3)

   Brad said on 7/21/2004 @ 7:44am PT: [Permalink]

   "Saddam did not obey 17 UN resolutions. Iraq 2003/2004 was just a continuation of Iraq 1991."

   Except this post is not about that tired (and mostly discredited) argument. If you’d like to display where the U.S. had the right to unilaterally do whatever they wanted based on those resolutions, go for it. It’s been tried, and it’s been proven fallacious. But you are welcome to try again.

   The point of this post was to show the blatant LIES that Bush is trying to sell to Americans by out and out telling them that Saddam didn’t allow the inspectors, and thus we had to go to war (or continue it, as you like to believe).

   That is an out and out lie. Are you able to demonstrate any differently? Or are you just interested in obfuscating the FACTS of the case?

   (I’m sure the answer is self-evident).

4. 

   4)

   Paul said on 7/22/2004 @ 3:58am PT: [Permalink]

   We did nothing unilaterally unless you mean that we did it without France and Germany.

5. 

   5)

   Brad said on 7/22/2004 @ 11:54am PT: [Permalink]

   Uh, no. What I mean by "unilaterally" is making the decision on our own, in defiance of the wishes of the United Nations (that were only important enough when Bush *thought* he’d be able to get them on his side. An idea quickly dropped when he realized he couldn’t get the votes needed).

   Also, what I mean by "unilaterally" can be quickly noted by comparing the "Coalition of the Fleeing Willing" with the legitimant coalition that George W. Bush’s daddy, an actual statesmen – whether one liked his policies or not, was able to put together to wage his own war. Feel free to compare the numbers of countries, the strategic location of those countries, the committment of those countries, and the lack of pay-off’s necessary to get those countries into the first coalition, versus the second imaginery one.

   Cleared that up for ya?

6. 

   6)

   Online Bingo said on 9/16/2005 @ 2:13am PT: [Permalink]

   How Online Bingo became more popular than land based bingo?