The Cellar - View Single Post

Undertoad · 07-27-2003, 10:48 AM

Rich, what's worse -- invading Iraq WITH congressional authority, or tossing missiles into Iraq WITHOUT it, starting on the first day of the Monica hearings and ending on the last day?*

Was anyone complaining about 70,000 troops in stable Germany during the 90s, post cold-war? Anyone? Was a stable, Democratic Germany a boon to the world and to the US? Would a stable, Democratic Iraq be an even greater boon?

There is one thing that the current administration is definitely stonewalling and lying about: Saudi Arabia. Everything else is just bias and spin. The 16 words? A ridiculous media event. They're jumping on it because it's easy and fun, but it's really a big ball of nothing.

Hey, to take this to the other thread, I would advise Lieberman to ask leading questions about Saudi Arabia. Why are they our buddies? Why do we treat them with such kid gloves? THIS is where the oilman connection is, not Iraq. Breaching the topic would show the country that a Democratic candidate has a concept of how to coach the offense in the War on Terror. And Lieberman definitely gets it.

* on this question: it's a good bet that 9/11 happened because bin Laden and his money men in Saudi Arabia believed that the US had become a paper tiger, unwilling to risk the deaths of US troops in foreign actions. The non-reaction to everything including the 1993 WTC attempt (connected to Iraq btw), the USS Cole, Somalia, etc. showed that the US was weak and political and scared of actually taking it to the enemy. The fact that we've shown, not as a government or President but as a PEOPLE, that we're completely unwilling to accept having the violence extended to our own shores, is the reason why all of the terrorism since then has taken place elsewhere.

07-27-2003, 10:48 AM	#24
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Rich, what's worse -- invading Iraq WITH congressional authority, or tossing missiles into Iraq WITHOUT it, starting on the first day of the Monica hearings and ending on the last day?* Was anyone complaining about 70,000 troops in stable Germany during the 90s, post cold-war? Anyone? Was a stable, Democratic Germany a boon to the world and to the US? Would a stable, Democratic Iraq be an even greater boon? There is one thing that the current administration is definitely stonewalling and lying about: Saudi Arabia. Everything else is just bias and spin. The 16 words? A ridiculous media event. They're jumping on it because it's easy and fun, but it's really a big ball of nothing. Hey, to take this to the other thread, I would advise Lieberman to ask leading questions about Saudi Arabia. Why are they our buddies? Why do we treat them with such kid gloves? THIS is where the oilman connection is, not Iraq. Breaching the topic would show the country that a Democratic candidate has a concept of how to coach the offense in the War on Terror. And Lieberman definitely gets it. * on this question: it's a good bet that 9/11 happened because bin Laden and his money men in Saudi Arabia believed that the US had become a paper tiger, unwilling to risk the deaths of US troops in foreign actions. The non-reaction to everything including the 1993 WTC attempt (connected to Iraq btw), the USS Cole, Somalia, etc. showed that the US was weak and political and scared of actually taking it to the enemy. The fact that we've shown, not as a government or President but as a PEOPLE, that we're completely unwilling to accept having the violence extended to our own shores, is the reason why all of the terrorism since then has taken place elsewhere.