Replies

I don't think he was asking questions. I think he was sneering and using a cynical approach to sow distrust of our commander in chief in a war, a war, not a political arguement over how to spend our tax money. His cynical distrustful questioning didn't seem to me to be genuine. Now the question of where are the WMD has been tossed around and most agree that they were hidden or spirited out of the country. It has been pointed out over and over the evidence that there was WMD in Iraq, hell they used chemicals and they admitted it, they admitted it. So why does Bilious come here implying GWB and our intelligence is lying or deceiving us? That is the question I was answering. I was saying he is no friend to us, to our war effort, was undermining trust at a vital time. You don't sit around carping in a political way about the Commander during wartime unless of course you are part of a fifth column. I used to think that was all paranoid thinking but I am more and more convinced it is so. All who ask questions aren't doing so in a manner that is made to make this country stronger. Some do it to undermine and I think Bill is that sort,,whether he is traitorous or just naive,,well I think he is a naive congenital distrustful doubter which is why I bothered to answer him. I think you are way way off base.

Don't be fooled by the "just asking questions" rationalizations. Drama-queens and those who wallow in conspiracies, love this stuff.

Their trick is to "just ask questions", and demand answers,
in the MIDDLE OF A WAR, when they know that the Admin. and the CIA can tell us little or nothing at this time.

They demand "court of law evidence", as if the Middle East follows the same rules, and as if we would give up sources to satisfy their lack of patience. After all, this must be wrapped up soon, in order to move to the next conspiracy.

And don't forget, Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Tenet, are all mendacious, devious and sinister.

And Saddam, Iran, and Syria, are just innocent bystanders in the US's quest for an Empire.

I think if you're going to talk about someone you ought to ping them

I was saying he is no friend to us, to our war effort, was undermining trust at a vital time

What vital time? When would you suggest I do that? Considering even the most conservative estimates from the neocons are now in the 10-20 year range for troops in Iraq and it looks as if there's going to be another 'action' in the war on terror (which in itself will last for a generation) on the horizon, just when would you suggest I start asking questions? Or dare I not ask questions of the great W?

But don't you worry, the die is cast. We're 'all war, all the time' now. After Iraq will come Liberia, then Syria, maybe Iran, heck if we can swing it we could get North Korea (the only nation besides Saudi Arabia that presents a direct threat to this nation) on the fly

I don't think he was asking questions. I think he was sneering and using a cynical approach to sow distrust of our commander in chief in a war, a war, not a political arguement over how to spend our tax money.

Do you think? Or do you know? Did you try and get any more clarification? From the looks of it, you didn't. There were many invitations for billbears to shut up, buzz off, go to DU, etc. There were very few that actually engaged him and did honest debate. You, as I have pointed out, were not among them.

So why does Bilious come here implying GWB and our intelligence is lying or deceiving us? That is the question I was answering. I was saying he is no friend to us, to our war effort, was undermining trust at a vital time.

I think the implication was going to war on faulty intelligence. Billbears points out that North Korea and Saudi Arabia are more immediate threats than Iraq was. While I disagree, I must admit that he may have a point. I personally happen to think that Iraq puts us in a position to hit every viper's nest from a central location as well as put pressure on Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. But I will personally attest to billbear being genuine. I can say that he subscribes to the old philosophy of keeping ourselves out of entangling wars and actions. That is a philosophy of the Founding Fathers. I think that preemptive action was needed in this case and am glad we did it; he doesn't. Why not engage in honest debate and change his mind?

You don't sit around carping in a political way about the Commander during wartime unless of course you are part of a fifth column. I used to think that was all paranoid thinking but I am more and more convinced it is so.

Really? And you didn't say a word when Bill Clinton was bombing Iraq in 1998? I sure did. Does that make me not "genuine", "traitorous", "part of a fifth column", a "naive congenital distrustful doubter"? How about you? Do you fit those descriptions if you cast doubt about Clinton's actions? I don't think it does and furthermore, I don't think it makes billbears that way, either. Because I know him to not be a socialist rabble rouser or a democrat, I think he asks hard questions and makes good points, even if I don't agree with them. If it comes to the point where I don't trust what I am being told by President Bush, or his admin, I will start asking questions. Lots of them.

I think you are way way off base.

I know that I am not. A little research would tell you the same.