[FUNdamental]

While you probably intended that remark to be an insult, I'll regard it a compliment. Considering the opposite pole which is "mentally-challenged liberal", I'll take being labeled a neo-con ANY DAY! One side has common sense...the other side has far-fetched theories of how steel has never melted, GWB imploded the WTC, etc. and has a host of well known idiots who believe in those theories: John Kerry, Jimmy Carter, Rosie O'Donnell, Mikey Mooron, Dan Rather, Barack Obama, Cindy Sheehan...that list of idiots goes on and on! One side gets their theories proven over time, the other continually suffers embarrassment when their ideas prove to be the stupid mindless meanderings that they are! You see, this is why Bush doesn't really care about the "low approval ratings" that the media just loves to measure him by. The passage of time will prove him right. Success is the true measure and we're beginning to see that happen in Iraq, much to the chagrin of liberals who are perpetually wrong.

The biggest blunder was invading Iraq after the President was told repeatedly his allegations of WMD, 15 minute strike capability, missile silos, mobile labs, etc. were wrong.



Quote:
Originally Posted by slevdogg
So we didn't invade Iraq to "fight the terrorists" as Bush and his cronies said, but to give them freedom?

No silly, we invaded Iraq to ensure that terrorists didn't get easy access to weapons that could be used against us in 9/11-style attacks. 9/11 (should have) taught us that there are some very evil people who are intent on killing us and we need to do all in our power to prevent that from happening. Obviously, some of us (that would be YOU, DUH, WhiteQueen, etc.) never quite learned that very simple lesson.

There were no WMDs, and Saddam was not interested in cozying up with fundamental extremists.



Quote:
Originally Posted by slevdogg
Should we invade every country whose citizens we do not consider to be free.

Again, you're totally missing the point. We invaded Iraq for our own national security. The freedom thing is just a fringe benefit of removing the dictator from power.

So we are more secure with 180,000 troops and equipment in Iraq, and not at home?



Quote:
Originally Posted by slevdogg
Who should be next? Cuba? Iran? Russia?

Iran is playing the same dangerous game that Saddam played. It should be obvious to people who enjoy freedom that there is great danger whenever Islamic radicals can get their hands on weapons that can kill en masse. Eliminating the potential for that to happen is paramount if you desire to keep your freedom. Cuba, Russia and all the rest on your list don't come close to the threat that looms with Ahmadinejad.

Yeah, I can predict your response: "you're a warmonger, jeskibuff". Au contraire, slobdoggie - there can only be a guarantee of peace and freedom if those who threaten that peace are stopped in their tracks. You don't wait for the trigger to be pulled if someone's pointing a gun at your head - you recognize and anticipate the threat and prevent it from ever getting to that point. You liberals would wait until the last moment of your lives, stupidly thinking that you can reason with madmen. We conservatives are way smarter than that!


Saddam avoided Islamic radicals. The threat was not there, he had no ability to strike. Many countries told us that, and for that the Republicans in the Senate coined the terms "Freedom Fries" and "Freedom Toast." The threat was somewhere else.


Quote:
Originally Posted by slevdogg
Almost all 47 countries in Africa? China? Should we just occupy every sovereign nation on the face of the planet? Should we take over the oceans? ****, why not wrest Antarctica from international support and just take it for ourselves.

Oh silly slobdoggie, now you're starting to babble uncontrollably. Is that foam at your mouth?
against TOS


Quote:
Originally Posted by slevdogg
Iraq has been a colossal failure.

Yes...Saddam and Islamic radicals made a mess out of that country. But if you read the news reports I mentioned, you'd realize what a tremendous transformation is taking place there right now and what that means to our national security! You obviously have no clue what a defeat is being handed to Al-Qaeda and Islamic radicals by this renaissance.

Saddam was not involved with "Islamic radicals."

Quote:
Originally Posted by slevdogg
We were lied into Iraq under the march to war beat following 9/11

Oh really? No liberal has yet to prove these "lies" were really lies. Yes, there was misinformation from several sources, but that doesn't constitute lies. The lies that CAN be proven are all the lame attacks that liberals have made on GWB. Mikey Mooron films are laced with lies and distortions. Dan Rather took a most embarrassing blow to his career and credibility because of the fabricated "evidence" he wanted so badly to believe. Beyond that, almost every liberal has been caught telling whoppers. John Kerry's campaign imploded because he couldn't open his mouth without telling a lie. We all remember Slick Willie waving his finger at the camera. Hillary dodging snipers? Obama's uncle liberating Auschwitz? AlGore practicing what he preaches? If I were a liberal, I'd be hiding under a rock, totally embarrassed by the hypocrites and liars that comprise the people I identify with. Yet you liberals seem to be proud of all the liars on your side of the aisle!

A Senate panel has concluded the information given to the White House was not the information the President, Vice president, an SoS articulated to the public. General Powell said his testimony before the UN was "deliberately misleading."



Quote:
Originally Posted by slevdogg
...while completely ignoring those who actually attacked us.

And just who are we ignoring? All of the 19 who carried out the attack on 9/11 are dead, so I'll have to agree with you there but I don't see any problem ignoring THEM, do you? We have mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and several other high-level Al-Qaeda operatives in custody, although your liberal buddies are putting forth their best efforts to set them free. Only in your imagination are we not looking for OBL, but then again you all have such vivid imaginations. I remember the theory that "they've already caught OBL, but they're waiting just prior to the election to march him out". Once again, you were wrong!

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Quote:
Originally Posted by slevdogg
Bush and Co. had decided long before 9/11 that he wanted to invade Iraq

Of course you ignore the fact that the prior administration also considered Iraq a deadly threat that warranted action. How conveniently you love to narrow the focus in order to achieve your desired goals!

The previous administration kept Iraq in check.



Quote:
Originally Posted by slevdogg
...he used 9/11 to sell the country on it.

Sorry, but you obviously don't get the whole picture. If you did, you'd understand the importance of shutting down a source of WMD to terrorists. But this has been explained to you for many years now and you still don't get it so I doubt that you ever will!

No WMD's, and no ties to 9-11.




Quote:
Originally Posted by slevdogg
The point of the so-called "surge" was to allow for political reconciliation.

Only in the puny minds of liberals. Liberals wanted to label the conflict a "civil war" that we shouldn't involve ourselves in. Liberals were blind to the fact that terrorists were fueling the conflicts between Shia, Sunni and Kurd. The more bloodshed that they could cause, the more Americans would call for a withdrawal. That's the only way they could win against our superior military. But the surge reduced that bloodshed, beat back the terrorists and allowed the good Iraqis the opportunity to gain the upper hand. With the violence ebbing and the realization that the true enemy of Iraqis were the terrorists, NOT the U.S. soldiers, progress is underway! If Dimocrats had their way, the terrorists would now be in total control of an oil-rich nation and we'd be in for a bloodbath of mammoth proportions. Thank God we have a president like GWB who didn't knuckle under to polls just because he thought his legacy depended on being "liked". Thank God we didn't have an egomaniac like Slick Willie at the helm who would have done the absolutely wrong thing just so that his popularity numbers wouldn't take a hit! We shouldn't want an insecure president who feels the need to be popular; we should want one that takes the RIGHT action, and GWB has done JUST THAT!

Speculation and spin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slevdogg
We're not seeing any real political reconciliation. Remember the 18 surge benchmarks? Wonder why the White House never talks about those anymore? Because by their own pre-defined metrics of success in Iraq they have failed. So now they are creating their own definitions of success as they go.

Success in Iraq is happening RIGHT NOW, and you'd see plenty of the evidence of it if you weren't so reluctant to embrace reality. Things don't always go according to plans, especially in a war where an enemy has their own plans for success. Transforming a country that was under brutal dictatorship for 30 years into a thriving democracy is not an overnight success, yet liberals demand instant results! Our own nation has had over 230 years since it began and although it's the best country in the world, it is far from perfect. The political reconciliation will happen over time, but contrary to what you want to believe, the terrorists are the ones fanning the flames of violence.

And how much is it costing us?



Quote:
Originally Posted by slevdogg
They're constantly moving the goal posts of success, as well as the reason we are there. They're now being reduced to saying that we're there because oil will skyrocket if we leave.

What we are witnessing today is momentum that will result in EVERY goal being met, PLUS! There are still ways to halt that momentum, the greatest being an idiot like Obama getting voted into the Oval Office!

Law Review.




Quote:
Originally Posted by slevdogg
I could literally write a bleeping book in response to your post, but I don't have the time. I'll leave it at this for now.

Oh, what you've said has all been said before, but maybe your book would still sell because liberals just love to believe that the more people who think the way they do means that their theories have merit. Scott McClellan hasn't said anything that liberals haven't said before, but they'll be buying his book in great numbers because they believe the greater the volume of sales, the more "truth" there is in the book. What fools!

For now, why don't you collaborate with FunDUHmental? He's at a loss for words in this thread: most notably on post #11. He has that classic deer-in-the-headlights look about him that happens when liberals can't seem to respond to simple questions. He made a lame attempt to answer point #11, but failed miserably. Maybe you both can put your heads together and come up with some good responses, but I doubt it. Hey, gang up on me if you want...put hundreds of liberal "thinkers" to the task! That's part of the fun of being a conservative....putting liberals up against a wall and watching as they struggle with all their self-proclaimed intelligence to answer what should be simple questions. I know, it's a little cruel, kind of like pulling the wings off a fly, but you really deserve the torture! It wouldn't be near as fun if you didn't strut around and proclaim your genius, like "DUH" in all his pompous glory!

The question was a hypothetical; anyone can design hypotheticals to make a failed point- Fox News does it all the time. The White House made egregious claims not supported by the facts given, and then went after the box.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slevdogg
And keep it civil. I think that you're personal beliefs and those of the Republican party are whacked, but I won't reduce myself to namecalling as you have. Dumbocrats? Calling someone a fool for voting for a Democrat? Grow up and respect differences in opinions. That's freedom, no war required.

You can only EARN respect, you can't demand it. How do you earn it? You talk with reason, you argue with solid logic. You do not fabricate and distort. You answer questions that are presented to you. You concede when you've lost an argument. Liberals cannot do these things. DUH certainly can't and judging from your perspective, neither can you. If you want respect, do these things and you'll GET IT.

Fabricate and distort? Isn't that what the White House did to get us into this mess?