You should take a statistics class together with SteveD, then maybe you'll understand. If you make 1000 warnings one of them will likely pan out and you can proudly declare I told you so. The problem of course is that you don't know which one warning was going to be correct so you'd have to act on all 1000 of them. Obviously the warning about Hussein was a total fuckup, he did not even have WMDs, only brain-dead people can compare it to Churchill's insightful warning regarding Hitler. And if you're paying attention to warnings by europeans - they are warning the world about George Bush and consider him the biggest threat to world peace.
While yours are: Master's, Partisan Smear Politics. That was what I asked dddooo, and where he got the percentage figure. Of course he didn't answer, and I don't expect you to either. So because it was Churchill we should ignore Al Qaeda. Your logic - or lack of, rather - is of course par for the course. Maybe you need to relax your sphincter.
So, dddooo, care to answer where you got your percentage figure from? No, I didn't think so. Care to admit you don't read entire articles before spewing your nonsense? No, I didn't think so. You should take a class in logic sometime, not to mention ethics, political science, and world history. Bottom line here is that you want Bush so bad you'll do and say anything that harms him, and never mind the cost to national security or how it motivates the enemy. Of course, you don't understand how it does that in the first place, so it wouldn't make any difference. You Libs' smear campaign is only going to backfire, as each time you numbskulls do this crap it only emphasizes how weak an impression your "raise the white flag and declare victory" strategy for national security is. Must be nice going through life as you do, with blinders on all the time. As for the Europeans, well, if they say it is so then it must be true. ROFLMAO!
hapaboy, Thank you for keeping these leftists under control. Question for the left: Why under a democratic president can we invade the Balkans and Milosevic w/out any national interest or direct threat to us? Yet post 9-11 under a republican president, he's a "war criminal", w/ 30+ countries supporting us? 99% of liberals in this country didnt even know who Milosevic was prior to said invasion. Was he a bigger threat to us than Saddam? Where were all your Hollywood friends tripping over themselves to the nearest camera yelling "war criminal" in the 90's? Just a thought. I hope the left can enlighten me a bit.
Personally I don't think that we should have invaded Yugoslavia but... Clinton's objective was to stop a war and bloodshed, the invasion of Iraq started a war and bloodshed. Our invasion of Yugoslavia was not based on false pretenses, we knew all along even if we disagreed why we were there. It was perfectly planned and executed with very well defined objectives and exit strategy. You probably meant 30 governments, cause there may only be 1 or 2 countries in the world where majority of the population supports the war in Iraq.
Once again, you conveniently go off into some sort of rambling diatribe that does not answer the specific question that I asked. Instead, you prefer all sorts of stereotypical "labeling" and conveniently go off topic in an effort to avoid answering my question. Here is the specific question that I asked: Are you going to be "ok" with the distinct possibility that the the democratic enterprise in Iraq appears to have empowered proponents of sharia law with alarmingly close ties to the terror masters of Iran? It's a pretty simple question. And believe it or not, you can answer it with a simple "YES" or "NO".
Well this left here was disgusted with Clinton's terrorizing of Belgrade from the sky. It was clearly a war crime as the Geneva Convention prohibits bombardment of civilians. So, OK. Clinton was a war criminal. Does this excuse, justify or validate the current president's war crimes and violations of US law and constitution?
Obviously you agree that I've made my point. All this one-sided raving from the left about Bush is without merit. Going after Saddam post 9/11 was a lot more justifiable than going after Milosevic. The world is a better place w/ out Saddam and the Taliban. Oh yeah, Qaddafi (sp?) even caved! WOW! Impressive to say the least. Again, most liberals at the time didnt even know who Milosevic was, where the Balkans were located and what we were doing there. But there was a giant HUSH from these stark raving Hollywood looneys and the left in general. Now theres a republican in office... everybody start yelling about blood and oil or whatever else politically unastute opinions come up with. Some of these people actually believe everything is a vast right wing conspiracy, and that any war from a democrat is justified.
Being "okay" with a "distinct possibility" about a situation that "appears" to be something is a tenuous question. Why not just get to the point instead of beating around the Bush (pun intended)? What I think you really want to know, but are hesitant to ask because you have no idea if it will happen, is if I will be "ok" with it if Iraq becomes a satellite Iran. Isn't that what you're asking?