[jeskibuff]

Originally Posted by FunDUHmental

The German government continued to report to the CIA "curveball" was at best "unstable and unreliable" about his statements to the German government concerning Iraq's alleged mobile chemical labs and weapons factories.

You seem to assert that because Curveball turned out to be a liar that it's a slam dunk that the Bush administration lied. What you fail to grasp is that he was just one of many sources of information. Intelligence is an aggregate of many sources of information that have to be assessed in total. There are obviously going to be discrepancies that have to be weighed and judged. If you toss out the Curveball facet, there were still many other factors that indicated Hussein needed to be checked; namely Saddam's own statements and the shell game he was playing with inspectors.

Originally Posted by FunDUHmental

Do you feel better informed now, Jesk?

Are you kidding me?? Do you really think you said anything credible and worthy of consideration?? You really are TOO full of yourself!

Originally Posted by FunDUHmental

you continue to blame the liberal media for bad news or news not in step with the White House's claims. Ridiculous; did the liberal news media cause the death of 3,600 American soldiers, includeing six yesterday? Is it the liberal media that is responsible for 65,000 wounded soldiers?

The liberal media is definitely responsible for dead and wounded soldiers. By proclaiming the falsehoods of "war for oil", "Americans occupying Iraq", "Americans torturing Iraqis", "troops bogged down on the road to Baghdad" and many other such inventions, they encouraged terrorists and normal Iraqis to resist "the American occupiers". I have no doubt that American soldiers have died because of the encouragement given by the liberal media against Bush and his "evil war for oil". Only recently have Iraqis learned that their real enemy is not America, but the terrorists who were responsible for the mass murder of their fellow Iraqis. This realization alone has caused a huge improvement in the situation over there. People feel more secure and are moving back from their exile in neighboring countries. It must really pain the liberal media to have to report the improvements that have occurred.

Originally Posted by FunDUHmental

Is it the liberal media's fault that humvee's were not equipped to handle roadside bombs?

As Rumsfeld had wisely proclaimed "you go to war with the army that you have". In other words, equipment isn't prepped years in advance for unexpected events. You have to adjust and adapt to the tactics of the enemy. While this doesn't occur instantly, we have adjusted and adapted to the tactics of these vermin, obviously not instantaneously. Reasonable people understand that it takes time for these adjustments to occur. Unreasonable people (a.k.a. liberals) demand that adjustments not made instantly are cause for blame. Rumsfeld was too reasonable for the puny liberal brain to grasp.

Originally Posted by FunDUHmental

Is it the liberal media's fault we have a civil war in Iraq?

It's the media's fault for proclaiming it to be a civil war in the first place. They mistakenly proclaimed the whole problem to be the inability for Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to live together. They failed to see the bigger picture; that terrorists were fomenting these conflicts in order to achieve the desired effect: increased violence and chaos. This played right into the hands of the stupid media, stupid Democrats and a few stupid Republicans (Hagel,Ron Paul,etc.): they saw the increased violence as uncontainable and the best way out to be withdrawal of our troops. Most Republicans recognized what was happening and understood the consequences of caving to "popular opinion". Fortunately, we "stayed the course" and proved the Dumbocrats wrong once again.

Originally Posted by FunDUHmental

"How's that "greeted as liberators" thing going anyway?

Quite well, actually. There are millions of Iraqis that are thankful that we ended Saddam's reign of terror and have given them the opportunity to live in freedom. You might have seen their smiles while they sported purple thumbs. If you hadn't turned off the set in disgust, you might have seen people partying in the streets, beeping their horns and celebrating their new-found freedoms. You probably thought it was staged...certainly you still can't accept the fact that thousands of Albanians (mostly Muslims) treated Bush like a "rock star" (NBC's description). That must have been staged too, eh? You just need to get a firm grip on reality, DUH!! The attitude behind your question totally exposes your ignorance and stupidity. Any reasonable person understands that a transition from 30 years of brutal dictatorship to democracy is going to have rough moments, especially when you factor in bloodthirsty Islamic radicals who will kill as many people as they can to prevent that transition. Would you also have the stupidity to forfeit a football game the minute the opposing team makes a touchdown in the first quarter? That's pretty much the defeatest attitude you possess, DUH.

Originally Posted by FunDUHmental

Where is the "freedom" in Iraq you speak of? What is "Freedom" for Iraq? It can't be a goal, by definition.

Iraqis have already been freed from a brutal regime, so that's already an improvement. They have been given several opportunities to vote in free elections. That's another improvement, but I'm sure you say that the 99% vote Saddam got was because of their free-will choice, don't you? Just because terrorists responded with unprecedented violence and are trying desperately to take Iraqi freedoms away doesn't mean the whole effort was in vain; it just means that the enemy is still capable of fighting back! Do you have any concept how many tough battles there were between D-Day and V-E day? With your pinhead mentality, you would have demanded our involvement ended at Normandy because there was such a great loss of life that day. You have absolutely no ability to look beyond the immediate to assess the consequences of inaction.

Originally Posted by FunDUHmental

Where is that "laser-like focus on Terrorism" you attributed to Bush a few years ago? Where is Osama? The president has said he doesn't give it much thought; do you?

That focus is still there. I'm quite proud that Bush hasn't caved in to the demands of the overly-vocal lefties. As far as Osama is concerned, he doesn't deserve much attention. He's just one of many terrorists that need to be eradicated. It makes no sense to put a lot of effort into finding just one terrorist when there's a target-rich environment in Iraq and Afghanistan, does it? In time he'll meet his demise, but right now he's busy cowering in caves. Liberals seem to think that if we killed Osama, all would be good. Liberals obviously don't have a clue about the enemy we face with Islamic fundamentalism.

Originally Posted by FunDUHmental

By the way, Osama and Saddam had no working relationship. Al qaeda was not in Iraq befor the invasion, and the Iraqi government was not sponsoring al qaeda. I made these claims on DoD back in the day, remember, or are you still to busy with your Republican, carefully worded, talking points?

I can't count the number of times this has been explained to you and other mentally-challenged liberals. I'm convinced that you either are incapable of understanding or choose to ignore simple logic. Are you an idiot or an ignoramus? Are there any other choices? I don't see any other possibilities!

Originally Posted by FunDUHmental

I think McCain blew it with the flak (or flack) jacket press statement in Iraq claiming the streets were safe. Really a bad visual, don't'cha think?

Perhaps you need to get an understanding about the difference between ordinary Iraqis and high-profile politicians. Perhaps even the Benazir Bhutto incident isn't enough to knock a little sense into you.