Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

george, I know one can interpret what GWBush says in so many ways, such as when he said, "if you're not with us, you're against us." So many ways to interpret such a statement. Yes?

Proudly in the "against us" faction!

As Timber has already pointed out it would be, at best, very difficult to make the case that the Administration lied about the causes of the Iraqi invasion. Clearly they touted the WMD matter in the Security Council debate, but by then we had already made and declared out intent, based on that and, more prominently other factors. It is implausible to assume that the administration knowingly lied about the WMD matter, given the eruption that has followed, and which could readily have been predicted if they knew the outcome.

The premise on which your rhetorical question is based is false.

You are correct, my reference was to your post. I am grateful that my right wing views have not earned your opprobrium. However we both know that my good nature and charm make that nearly impossible - not to mention my rapier-like responses.

However I strongly suspect the three or four you have so cited were all of the 'right wing' variety. If so, you must concede that contrary views do play a factor in your reaction. I'm also willing to believe these individuals were all a bit pushy and annoying as Italgato undoubtedly was. I have several times found myself annoyed with what I see as the self-righteous and patronizing contempt so readily dished out by some of the prominent liberal 'members' of the thread. Sometimes I react in kind - usually a mistake. When I wait and read on I usually find something else of value in their posts. My issue is only with the judgement that they (or almost anyone) is unfit for 'membership in the group'.

I do recognize my hypocrisy here - you are one of the best of A2K.

george,

Take a little time and read back........then come tell me that you don't arrive at the same conclusion. It's true we should all just ignore a problem member, but when that member is as provocative as some are, someone will always come along and take the bait. If we were all just easy going, laid back types, but we're not. I love opposing views in a discussion, otherwise there's nothing new to learn either from your own explanation about your conviction or from the opposing view. But sometimes, enough is enough. And I think that time is now.

Let's get back to the thread topic.

So then, george, this means that it's only a lie if the lie can be proven in a court of law?

Notice how many reporters, for example those on the "News Hour," have made the comment "I don't want to call it a lie, let's call it a misdirection," when discussing the various whoppers that have fallen from the lips of Buhsy-Poo II.

This is a good question, Hobitbob. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might even wonder if the situation in Iraq is purposely being allowed to deteriorate further in order to guarantee a continued US clean up team presence whether or not Bush is re-elected a second term.


Is it possible to make such a mess of things in Iraq that the next administration, no matter who it is, will have no choice but to remain in Iraq to repair the damage done there and to US foreign relations?

I certainly would not wish to be the next President and be faced with such disasterous lack of choices.

I'm just wondering when the American People are going to start reacting to the deaths of American soldiers and the one billion a week we're spending there?

When and how much is the next money request by Bush for this 'project?'

Well, the 87 billion doesn't include the money he expects to extort from Europe, which I strongly doubt he will get. It also only covers operations this fiscal year.

Lola,

I believe that a significant part of the "provocative" behavior of the contributor in question was in the orientation of his views and his persistent disagreement with the prevailing wisdom here. I doubt that, alone, that would have elicited the reaction that finally broke out . However it was the start. My strong impression from my experience on A2K is that the same persistence and stubbornness would not have elicited the same reactions had he been a 'left wing' type.

I agree that our continued presence here suggests that none of us, myself included, are really laid back types, and am aware that I advocated a standard which I don't always maintain myself.

I think Blatham is a good guy and believe his reaction in this case was both uncharacteristic and a bit beneath him.

OK - back to the topic. Listen Lola you ignorant bitch, I said there was no logical basis on which to conclude he lied. I admit the possibility, even likelihood, that we saw a little selective emphasis on favorable elements of the story. However that level of prevarication is the mother's milk of politics.

It is clear that the Administration did not anticipate the degree to which the physical infrastructure of Iraq had crumbled over the last two decades, and that the persistent belligerence of the regime was actually hiding - almost nothing. I don't think anyone fully anticipated that. Perhaps we should have evaluated things differently - the USSR gave us an example. Back in 1984 we estimated the Soviets were spending about 22% of their GDP on their military establishment. We were a bit spooked by their high performance aircraft (remember the Foxbat), their supersonic cruise missiles, and their 40 knot, deep diving submarines. Much later we verified earlier suspicions to the contrary - they were spending more like 30% of GDP to match a defense establishment that cost us 4%; the Foxbat had engines with a useful life of only 30 hours; and their submarines, though brilliantly designed, were poorly constructed and not reliable during sustained operations.

And more importantly, the Mig 25 didn't even look cool!

Ignorant bitch reporting for duty :wink: george..........so you have my number, do you? Laughing

Phew! PMs aflyin' re: ignorant bitch.

george, the line was was "Jane you ignorant slut, to my recollection That was Ackroyd, wasn't it? I realy enjoyed the "News Hour" episodes. My favorite was the one in which Jane Curtin sheds her prim powersuit and reveals naughty black undies.

As one of the worst offenders over the last few days, perhaps we all need to make that extra effort toward civility?

yes, Timber, it was "Jane, you ignorant slut" but that would have been too close to the real truth.........laughing........no PMs so far, Sofia. Very funny. Excellent. Have me nailed. laughing...........still laughing

And yes, hobitbob, civility would be nice, but if necessary, avoiding confrontation is possible

I think we all recognized immediately that george was smiling, out there on that limb. I laughed when I saw it, pointed it out to Lola, who also laughed. And timber is correct on 'slut' and on speaker. And though I don't know for sure, ten bucks says the writer was Al Franken.

Well I thought about slut too, but decided that Lola is on another, better plane. That left only bitch.