Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Dr. Eagle]

You don't suppose they were misquoted do you....
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb,18,1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D,CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27,2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10,2002
SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--
THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION--
AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!

[FRENCHIE]

Jees what a hell of a long thread....that made me go zzzzzzzzzzz:D

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by FRENCHIE
Jees what a hell of a long thread....that made me go zzzzzzzzzzz:D
Sorry didn't feel like editing it down to a few classics......zzzzzzzzzzz

[FRENCHIE]

its all good, i have to respect my elder and veteran post kings!!:D

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by FRENCHIE
its all good, i have to respect my elder and veteran post kings!!:D
Trimmed out a few duplicate quotees and non important ones.... should be better now.

[mirvin]

Man, it must suck to be "them";)
mirvin

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by mirvin
Man, it must suck to be "them";)
mirvin
changing your mind that much, and that often..... and when most convenient to take the other side.
Makes you wonder.... and reminds me of the entire Clinton years. Back when the President's first duty in the morning was to look at the polls to see what side to take on an issue.
Like I said.... Hmmmmmmmmmm

[mikev]

Gotta love the Demorats of all the wars we have been in last century they only got us involved in: Vietnam by Kennedy, Korea by Truman, ww2 by Roosevelt and ww1 by Wilson. I think we lost a few more lives in those conflicts than in iraq and afgannistan.

[fourspeednup]

Originally posted by mikev
gotta love the Demorats of all the wars we have been in last century they only got us involved in: Vietnam by Kennedy, Korea by Truman and ww2 by Roosevelt. I think we last a few more lives in those conflicts than in iraq and afgannistan.
I don't think that is a fair comparison, I understand your logic but those events were more along the lines of worldwide issues as opposed to a dem dragging the country into war---Esp. WW2 :cool:

[mikev]

What did Vietnam and Korea have to do with us? not much if memory serves also the democrats state that we were the aggressor they never attached us well what the hell was 9-11. more people died in that attack than Perl Harbor.

[fourspeednup]

I'd have to agree with you on Korea and Vietnam---was speaking more on WW2.....worded it poorly:frown:

[mikev]

Thats cool forspeednup were not english professors around here. but more people died on 9-11-2001 than died in the attack on Pearl Harbor so I feel we are justified in our current war since we were attacked.

[fourspeednup]

I had a point in there somewhere but I guess that's why I'm not a public speaker/typer;) ....that whole speaking before thinking thing:D

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by mikev
Thats cool forspeednup were not english professors around here. but more people died on 9-11-2001 than died in the attack on Pearl Harbor so I feel we are justified in our current war since we were attacked.
Absolutely......!!!!!!!!!!!

[sidewound]

That's all fine and dandy. When it benefits them they'll change again. Beautiful being a politician. Say anything ya want and not mean it. Funny world huh?
Peace Man!:cool:
CESAR

[Kilrtoy]

We all know they are liars, they say whatever is good for the moment

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by sidewound
That's all fine and dandy. When it benefits them they'll change again. Beautiful being a politician. Say anything ya want and not mean it. Funny world huh?
Peace Man!:cool:
CESAR
It depends on what your definition of is is.........

[Dave C]

Madleline half-bright has been on Fox news several times admitting she said this stuff. So they don't denying it.
The media just never asks them about it. They would rather toss them softballs. That just leaves the ordinary person with the impression that Bush alone lied.
So if Bush lied then the Clinton administration lied too.

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Dave C
Madleline half-bright has been on Fox news several times admitting she said this stuff. So they don't denying it.
The media just never asks them about it. They would rather toss them softballs. That just leaves the ordinary person with the impression that Bush alone lied.
So if Bush lied then the Clinton administration lied too.
Yeah, I don;t think either lied honestly. I think both got bad information and acted on it in various degrees...

[summerlove]

Originally posted by mikev
Thats cool forspeednup were not english professors around here. but more people died on 9-11-2001 than died in the attack on Pearl Harbor so I feel we are justified in our current war since we were attacked.
I didn't realize that Iraq attacked us on 9/11.
Thanks for the education...

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by summerlove
I didn't realize that Iraq attacked us on 9/11.
Thanks for the education...
You're welcome..........:confused: :rolleyes:

[What's Poppin']

It seems to me that the mainly Republican membership of this forum have forgotten a few pertinent details. If I am not mistaken, which I could be, wasn't it Bush who appointed Tenet to the top CIA job, and wasn't it on his recomendation that Bush decided to wage a war on a country based on inaccurate information? To this day they have not been able to substatiate any of the reasons they went after Iraq...not WMD'd and not real connection to Al-Qaida prior to the war. Now he has every Islam in the world out to get us...there is your leadership for you...oh, by the way, anybody priced gas lately? How about the national budget? I am confused as to actually the real problem here.

[Dave C]

Clinton appointed Tenet (director of CIA) Tenet is a left over.
quote: "George J. Tenet became Director of Central Intelligence on July 11, 1997"
Bush should have fired him already......
its funny how someone comes on here to read us the riot-act and tell us to get our details straight when they have it all wrong......

[Dave C]

BTW.... where were you guys when Clinton bombed Iraq repeatedly during his tenure. Did you not have a problem with that?

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by What's Poppin'
It seems to me that the mainly Republican membership of this forum have forgotten a few pertinent details. If I am not mistaken, which I could be, wasn't it Bush who appointed Tenet to the top CIA job, and wasn't it on his recomendation that Bush decided to wage a war on a country based on inaccurate information? To this day they have not been able to substatiate any of the reasons they went after Iraq...not WMD'd and not real connection to Al-Qaida prior to the war. Now he has every Islam in the world out to get us...there is your leadership for you...oh, by the way, anybody priced gas lately? How about the national budget? I am confused as to actually the real problem here.
Dave C had it right, GW carried over Tenet from the clintoon administration. And that would be the same CIA that told clintoon that they could get Osama in Afghanistan and that the Asprin Factory in the Sudan was actually a chemical weapons facility.
Is there a little SELECTIVE MEMORY going on here?
And what the HELL makes you think that the Islamic world is or was ever our friend. Wake the hell up, they have hated everything about America for decades. Many of the radicals would not be happy until we all wear towels around our heads.
Oh and if you adjusted the price of gasoline from 1981 for inflation today it would be 2.80.
Yes GW is spending too much money, but Kerry will shut down the military (like clintoon and carter) and spend more money on "domestic" (read pandering) issues. Bush will get it together, Kerry will take this country down the toilet.......
ONE DICK, ONE BUSH, THE WAY GOD INTENDED IT......
:D

[What's Poppin']

Clinton's bombing of Iraq did not cost over 600 Americans lives, and the gas prices of 1981 have nothing to do with the prices today. You guys want to waive the flag for Bush, that's fine. As for Kerry, he is no real answer. He did state he would put more troops on the groung in Iraq, just like Bush, so much for running the military into the ground. As for all the towel heads you so eloquently refered to, if they have hated us for years, then what the hell are we doing there now for? Oil!

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by What's Poppin'
Clinton's bombing of Iraq did not cost over 600 Americans lives, and the gas prices of 1981 have nothing to do with the prices today. You guys want to waive the flag for Bush, that's fine. As for Kerry, he is no real answer. He did state he would put more troops on the groung in Iraq, just like Bush, so much for running the military into the ground. As for all the towel heads you so eloquently refered to, if they have hated us for years, then what the hell are we doing there now for? Oil!
YOu are right, it didn't cost american lives. And it didn't do anything but PISS off Osama. In fact it has been said that his response was something like "and so it begins".
CLINTON reduced the size of an Army division from 18,000 toops to 12,000 troops. How to shrink the military without LOOKING like you are. More aircraft were mothballed in the early 90s than any time since WWII. Not just old crappy ones, many were brand new ones...
No poopin, Clinton's government was all about the PEACE dividend. Cut the military and see who we can give the money to that'll make em want to vote for us.
The military strength of this country was cut in half. Many units were decommissioned. Bases everywhere were closed, not that we needed all of them, but I think they went just a little too far.
As for gas, it is relevant... very relevant. We have gotten spoiled as the price of gas hasn't kept up with inflation, which is damn well fine with me. But if you took the price of gas from even the late 60s and adjusted for inflation, it would be a bargain.
And where our policy in the middle east revolves around, OIL is as good a reason as any.....
:p

[Cas]

speaking of oil (long read)
btw, wasn't it Clintoon that agreed to have the US rep removed from OPEC? along with 4 others?
OPEC Is No Friend of Ours
by Jerry Taylor
Jerry Taylor is director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute.
Is the OPEC cartel a good thing for consumers? Its raison d'etre, after all, is to radically restrain production in order to jack up oil prices. Given the political and economic angst sparked by the recent spike in gasoline prices, you'd think that the answer would be rather obvious. You would, however, be wrong. Rather than come up with a plan to bust up the cartel, most Washington politicos and policy mavens are content to leave the cartel alone and, in fact, defend OPEC against those who want to tear it down.
OPEC apologists contend that the cartel assists in stabilizing oil prices. The record, however, suggests otherwise.
In the period between World War II and the formation of OPEC, the inflation-adjusted price of oil fluctuated little. Oil prices indeed jumped during the Middle East crises of 1956 and 1967, but they fell back quickly. In fact, the inflation-adjusted price of oil -- indexed by GDP -- fell by about two-thirds from 1945 to 1970.
From 1970-1980, however, the real price of oil rose by about 1,300 percent. Between 1980 and 1986, it dropped by about two-thirds. It was fairly steady between 1986-1997, fell farther in 1997-1998, and then nearly quadrupled after February 1999. This is stability?
Cartel prices fluctuate more because they are less certain than normal market prices, inviting speculation. In short, market agents are forced not only to consider global supply and demand but also to factor in OPEC's behavior and its members' fidelity to their promises. Hence, the market is less predictable and prices are accordingly more volatile.
The price spike in late 1973 is instructive. There were only trivial changes in world oil supply yet prices rocketed, a phenomenon that can only be explained by buyers' panic.
Others believe that OPEC is doing us a favor by producing oil in dribs and drabs because underproduction now postpones the end of the oil age. The widely advertised, long predicted end of the oil age, however, is like the horizon -- forever receding as we move closer to it.
How would we know if oil was indeed becoming scarcer? The only certain metric would be finding costs. If oil stocks were indeed dwindling, it would be more expensive to find and develop each additional barrel of oil. Up until about 15 years ago, however, finding and developing costs were trending downwards, not upwards.
Since then, most of the data on the matter have simply disappeared. As an alternative, economists Morry Adelman and Campbell Watkins tabulated the sales value of proved reserves in the United States, information that serves as a window on the value of oil reserves anywhere in which oil finders can go freely and invest. From 1982-2002, however, the price of existing reserves did not increase, demonstrating that the market does not believe oil in the ground is an appreciating asset.
Someday, of course, oil stocks will indeed begin to dwindle. When that might be, however, is unknowable because new technologies continue to emerge that make finding and producing oil cheaper than ever before. Regardless, we don't need OPEC to manage the future. When depletion becomes a real problem, oil prices will rise of their own accord and economies will adjust because prices today reflect expectations about prices tomorrow.
OPEC's defenders also contend that high oil prices bring political stability to the Middle East and that low oil prices bring political instability. Perhaps. But why is a stable Saudi, Iranian, or Libyan regime in our interest? While we could perhaps imagine worse regimes, we could certainly imagine better. But more to the point, the argument that these undemocratic, oppressive, ideologically bizarre, and terrorist-friendly regimes are propped-up by high oil prices is scarcely a strong argument for applauding the cartel's machinations. In fact, President Bush's program to encourage human rights, democracy, and peace in the Middle East will not succeed as long as these regimes remain in power in their current incarnations.
Let's be clear about what's at stake. If OPEC disappeared tomorrow, oil prices would drop to somewhere around $8 a barrel and gasoline prices would almost certainly be south of $1 a gallon. A price collapse of that magnitude would do more for consumer welfare and the overall health of the American economy than almost anything that's been put on the table by President Bush or his Democratic Party rivals. Accordingly, the OPEC cartel should be resisted, not embraced, and policy should aim at undermining it, not propping it up.

[Dr. Eagle]

Yes, I have the math equasion right here..........
OPEC = BAD

[What's Poppin']

My point is not about the price of gas in relation to inflation. There is no question we have been fortunate in the US with gas prices remaining as low as they have. Europe has been paying much more for far longer. But would someone please explain to me how prior to 9/11 gas prices were about 1.20 to 1.40, then after they dropped to as low as .89, and now it is over $2 ? From my understanding we still have the same amount of refinerys (sp).
I will not lie, I could give a crap about all these 3rd world countries, I have all I can handle just getting through my day, trying to teach my kids to be good people. As for our foreign policy, I am sick and tired of ANY politician, be Democrat or Republican using that premise to put more money in their pockets on the backs of the military. Ask Dick Cheny how much Halliburton paid him to get those illeagal contracts in Iraq.

[Moneypitt]

Some people that are "water tap phobic" actually pay MORE for WATER than gas!!! Think how long the french worked for the slogan or gimmick to sell those stupid Americans bottled water....

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by What's Poppin'
My point is not about the price of gas in relation to inflation. There is no question we have been fortunate in the US with gas prices remaining as low as they have. Europe has been paying much more for far longer. But would someone please explain to me how prior to 9/11 gas prices were about 1.20 to 1.40, then after they dropped to as low as .89, and now it is over $2 ? From my understanding we still have the same amount of refinerys (sp).
I will not lie, I could give a crap about all these 3rd world countries, I have all I can handle just getting through my day, trying to teach my kids to be good people. As for our foreign policy, I am sick and tired of ANY politician, be Democrat or Republican using that premise to put more money in their pockets on the backs of the military. Ask Dick Cheny how much Halliburton paid him to get those illeagal contracts in Iraq.
It is called supply and demand. For one thing, Refining capacity in the US has declined steadily for the last 10-15 years, especially in California. Some suppliers have taken to importing finished stocks... that didn't happen much 10-15 years ago.
Environmental regulation and in California our "clean gas" has closed many of the smaller refiners. We went from around 34 refineries in California to I believe 11 now, all a result of refiners looking at the cost of plant and equipment to retool for the new gas and deciding to close down rather than risk the capital.
For another, Crude Oil is around $38 a barrel. That is very much on the high side. When you cited the lower gas prices, crude was less than $20, at one point down to $11 per barrel. Are you going to suggest that Cheney is manipulating the world oil prices? If you are, I think that was the twilight zone theme playing as I was reading that post.
As far as your reference to "illegal contracts in Iraq" obviously you listen to Air America and buy all of their BS. Illegal? Remains to be seen. Right now that kind of talk is just baseless rhetoric.

[beer hunter]

Great post Dr. Eagle!!!.........Total hypocrisy on the Dem's part!!

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Moneypitt
Some people that are "water tap phobic" actually pay MORE for WATER than gas!!! Think how long the french worked for the slogan or gimmick to sell those stupid Americans bottled water....
Shit, you're right.........BOYCOTT PERRIER........

[Dave C]

So do you have a problem with Gore's illegal deals with Occidental Petroleum?
you want to talk about direct quid pro quo's ask Al Gore about Occidental petroleum's oil deals.
Plus Gore's family still has ownership in O.P.
Cheney sold all his stakes in Halliburton a long time ago.
Nice double standard you have there.
Originally posted by What's Poppin'
Ask Dick Cheny how much Halliburton paid him to get those illeagal contracts in Iraq.

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by Dave C
So do you have a problem with Gore's illegal deals with Occidental Petroleum?
you want to talk about direct quid pro quo's ask Al Gore about Occidental petroleum's oil deals.
Plus Gore's family still has ownership in O.P.
Cheney sold all his stakes in Halliburton a long time ago.
Nice double standard you have there.
Thanks for the assist...........:D and dynamite point. Double standards are the Democratic Party Standard....:rolleyes:

[Dr. Eagle]

Originally posted by beer hunter
Great post Dr. Eagle!!!.........Total hypocrisy on the Dem's part!!
Thanks first Beer Lord, far be it for me to confuse the Liberals with the facts....... They just hate it when someone does that to them....:mad: :rolleyes: :D