Right War, Right Place, Right Time

Just to add to the daily punch-up, a delightful article just full of cross references and substantiating data. Have at it folks.

Right War, Right Place, Right Time
Kerry is wrong: Iraq is central to defeating al Qaeda.

"Earlier this month, five 9/11 widows held an emotional press conference and – one by one –
stood before a microphone to talk about fear. They invoked the tragic loss of their loved ones
three years ago and declared that concern for their children’s future has moved them to endorse
the candidacy of John F. Kerry. These are the very same women who just six months ago angrily
denounced the use of fleeting images of Ground Zero in a Bush campaign ad, saying it was a form
of exploitation that was “unconscionable” and “disgusting.” They asserted that neither candidate
should use 9/11 for personal political gain, calling the use of 9/11 “a slap in the face of the
murders of 3,000 people.”

“Though these same widows participated in an anti-Bush demonstration sponsored by MoveOn.org
demanding that the president pull his television ads off the air, they maintained then, as they
do now, that they are nonpartisan, that they are moved solely by their conscience and by a sense
of civic duty. At the close of their press conference, Kerry handlers distributed press releases
declaring that “9/11 Families Endorse John Kerry for President” and announced that the widows
might be used in television ads in swing states.”

“Anyone who has actually read the report would know that the 9/11 Commission had plenty to say
about the connections between al Qaeda and Iraq, but because much of its findings were beyond the
scope of its charter, important details went unstated in public hearings or were buried in the
minutiae of the published narrative. Virtually every reporter I have spoken to has failed to answer
this basic question satisfactorily: “Have you actually read the report?” The answer is almost always
a sheepish “No.” Those who have only given it a cursory scan may have missed the fine-print chapter
notes where explosive information about names, dates, places, and conversations concerning the
Iraq-al Qaeda connection are outlined in chilling detail.”
(excert from article)

Right war, right place, right time, but wrong reason.

I’m not talking about defeating international Islamic terrorists, nor removing a brutal dictator that cruelly abused his own people. I’m talking WMD. That was the excuse for the war and it turned out to be nothing other than a stick Bush’s opponents in the USA could use to beat him - metaphorically, and maybe even politically.

Right War, Right Place, Right Time
Right War, Right Place, Right Time
Right War, Right Place, Right Time
Right War, Right Place, Right Time
Right War, Right Place, Right Time

It works. Keep repeating it, you almost start to believe it.

Tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs
Tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs
Tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs
Tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs
Tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs

Too bad I already voted.

I believe it! Sign me up! I already voted too!

We need a tally sheet to see who posts a reply without having read the article…lol. :smiley:

If the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians and thousands of US troops will save one American life, it will have been worth it. And by one American life, I mean me.

The only problem, of course, is that the Iraq war was all about oil, Halliburton and Kristol & Wolfowitz’s looney “Project for a New American Century.” I want my money back.

Did you ever actually pay any? I was under the impression that you were one of those scrofulous sexpat types.

Oh, this is soooo tired. Evidence? None. I like how libs throw Haliburton around. They freeze when you ask them what exactly Haliburton has to do with anything. Oooops! You mean I have to have substance? Darn.


Check it out. It debunks a lot of the crap on both sides, including your precious Haliburton gig.

Didn’t Spock say something like that in The Wrath of Kahn? Something like, “The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many?” Where is your logic?

Crap! That was Kirk in the later movie! No wonder. He was an evil Yankee from Iowa.

Crap! That was Kirk in the later movie! No wonder. He was an evil Yankee from Iowa.[/quote]

But Shatner’s C-A-N-A-D-I-A-N! Conspiracy theories anyone?

hometown.aol.co.uk/__121b_O+wOh2 … OlgCWG9CSK

Oh for crying out loud. Half the people in Hollywood are Canadian.

Explains the quality of the movies, doesn’t it?

:bravo: :laughing: :bravo: :laughing:

so we fought the war so we could pay more for oil? :loco:

Flippy, yeah… it’s pretty fricking nuts when you think about it. Iraq, a country with the 2nd largest proven oil reserves, and the rosy predictions of the Bush administration have all turned out to be completely wrong.

“It’s not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” – Donald Rumsfeld, Feb. 7, 2003

“My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.” – Dicky Cheney, March 16, 2003.

“We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” – Paul Wolfowitz, March 27, 2003.

“Major combat operations have ended.” Some phony jackass wearing a flight-suit costume. May 1, 2003.

Part of it is the dumb crony capitalism that the Bush crowd pursued. They couldn’t have contractors actually bid on the contract because the Iraq rebuilding was so “urgent” … and then the no-bid recipient ended up doing squat with the money budgeted. Halliburton has only started a fraction of the infrastructure work that it was supposed to do to get the country running again.

I read a report by a stockmarket analyst who reckons oil prices will be down again in 2005 because supply and demand are more or less in equilibrium and all that’s keeping prices up is hysteria, and speculation which fuels a self-fulfilling high-price prophesy. Not sure if I agree though. It’s partly about oil, of course, but unless America has gone completely mad they must have more to worry about than the price of oil. I used to think it was a choice between China and the US as the future ruler of the world, and I’d take the US any day of the week. But it does really seem as if there is the potential to be held to ransom by powerful monied terrorists who have no vision, no ideology at all. Are you sure. Kirk. Didn’t become. An American. Bones?

lol. i love when you can totally make shit up to support your argument. :slight_smile:

if oil prices go down: “see, they invaded because they needed lower oil prices!”

if oil prices go up: “see, they invaded because they thought the prices were going to go down, but it went up instead!”

mofan, i think you started posting on this board to stalk 14 year old girls. the fact that you haven’t done so only proves how stupid you were to think there were 14 year old girls on this board for you to stalk!


You could make a guess that I started posting on this board to stalk 14-year-old girls, but you would not actually have a basis for that. In contrast, based on the substance and quality of many of your posts, I would probably be more correct in guessing that you started posting on this board to practice English.

Before the war, there was an awful lot of talk about how the oilfields were going to get Iraq back up and on its feet in no time. The fact is that the equipment was in worse shape than was anticipated and we’re getting oil pipelines blown up all the time because the Bush administration absolutely misjudged the attitude of the Iraqi people. The fact that the Bush administration is a bit top-heavy on oil people and very secretive about its dealings with oil people is well established. Add in the Project for a New American Century materials and the involvement of key administration officials such as Paul Wolfowitz, and I think there are good reasons to tie the Iraq war in with oil.

So why didn’t we just take Saudi Arabia? Fewer people there and lots of oil. And hell…NOBODY likes the Saudis. :laughing:

So why didn’t we just take Saudi Arabia? Fewer people there and lots of oil. And hell…NOBODY likes the Saudis. :laughing:[/quote]

And I’m certain those who oppose the war in Iraq would support an invasion of SA… after all, the 911 terrorists were all from SA.

So, mofo, do you think that we should have invaded SA instead?