Originally Posted By: whomod
 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy


While I agree that accountability is good, would that you would hold the same standard of accountability to Democrats.
Such as Bill Clinton's two failures to capture Osama Bin Ladin.


I discussed this already.


That's a bogus link, that doesn't even connect to one of your posts.

 Originally Posted By: whomod

As for the rest, Rex summed it up nicely, thank you very much.


 Quote:
blah blah bla blacks bla bla bla jews bla bla...


Yeah, it's consistent for you to endorse his inane remarks, even though I said nothing about blacks or jews. As I've said many times, I'm very pro Israel, so allegations that I made antisemitic remarks are absurd, and the other allegations are equally ridiculous.



 Originally Posted By: whomod

The U.S. military prosecuting Iraq war atrocities, the Congress investigating atrocities. Even the Administration condemning atrocities means nothing to you from the sound of it.


Seven U.S. soldiers and their superior officers who allowed it.
But to hear you allege it, here and in other topics, every one of the 150,000 soldiers in Iraq are guilty of the same abuses.
Despite that it was American soldiers who reported the abuses, it was American military who investigated, tried and prosecuted these abusers, sentenced them to prison terms, and court-martialed and discharged their superior officers.

The administration condemned the actions of these seven soldiers. Whereas you smear the entire U.S. military, who were repulsed by these actions and took steps to remove the abusers from their ranks and punish them.



 Originally Posted By: whomod

Rather I think you believe that America can do what it wants and not have to answer to anyone.


That's just another of your ad-hominem attacks. I clarified the truth in my above paragraph.

 Originally Posted By: whomod

It's a waste of time talking to you since you refuse to critically examine anything. Rather you like to wave flags and lob accusations at anyone who doesn't nod approvingly of this debacle whenever anyone says "progess is being made' and "we're winning hearts and minds". A few more slogans and a few more critics silenced and and we'll be in candy and flowers land lickety split!


You're the one lobbing ad-hominem accusations, who can't seem to defend his POV.

All I've done is point out your partisanship, where you act as if corruption is unique to the Republicans, and that Democrats are morally pure and free of corruption.




To answer your other point About Vice President Cheney's 1994 remarks about how invading Iraq would have been a "quagmire", -vs.- the same kind of operation he advocated in March 2003:

I saw Cheney answer this when mockers first started you-tubing his 1994 remarks. He made his rounds on Meet the Press and other Sunday news shows and answered that. Basically, the situation did change after 9-11. And while the same risks of an Iraq invasion existed, Saddam was still a major player in regional terrorism (he gave a $15,000 check to the family of every suicide bomber in West Bank and Gaza, he supplied training for terrorists and other funding, he continued to threaten his neighbors,and murder and torture his own people). And that widening belt off terror couldn't be allowed to grow in the age of Al Qaida, post-9/11.
In addition to pursuing WMD's, David Kay in his report before congress said that Iraq was on the verge of economic collapse before the March 2003 invasion, and that the scientists involved in WMD research would have become impoverished but highly marketable, or a "nuclear arms bazaar on sale to the highest bidder".

So in a nutshell, Cheney's response was that the quagmire risk in Iraq was the same, but the risks of not going into Iraq risked far more, in de-stabilization and terrorism in the region.