Bush supporters and Neocons do not like and will not tolerate any criticism. Their idea of democracy is ‘my way or no way’. Perhaps that is why the majority of Americans are no longer listening to them.

Every American with half a brain knows that John McCain meant what he said. And McCain did imply that he would not mind our troops being in Iraq for the next 100 years.

The Bush supporters are just looking for anything to distract the American people from the truth – your side is full of war mongerers.

As for keeping on topic – this one is now closed on my end. I have replied to your retorts and to no avail. You just want to argue where there is no argument.

The Repukes know that, but they insist on spreading the same old bullshit, deeper and wider.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm

Wolfowitz, a student of Strauss at the University of Chicago. used to call himself a Straussist, before calling himself a neoconservative.

Terrorist Warnings
Gore Blames Bush for Ignoring Iraq Terrorism
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0h6gehCPvpk&feature=related

Or you can listen to the history revisionists like Ben, lucee and the rest of duh Libs on this blog.

I suppose Gore and Clinton were just lying.

Who knew?

(chortles)

Another likely neocon objective of the Iraq occupation is to have permanent bases in that part of the country to keep an eye on Iran and Syria and to have forward forces to launch invasions against them.

The occupation is spurring the insurgency, not protecting Iraqis from it. This latter is the greatest myth of this exciting misadventure.

Ask yourself, who are the insurgents?

Are they Al Qaeda? – at most 10% of them.
Are they dead-ender Baathists? No.
Are they unemployed military staff? No.
Who are they then? for the most part they are shi’ites who are stuggling against our occupation. The Shia were supposed to be our allies in controlling the Sunnis. Shia and Sunnis have banded together against U.S. occupiers. Very simple – they are iraqis first, sectarian members, second. Read it all here:

http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9781582434032-0

So, you agree that McCain did not say what you were implying?

Stay on topic.

And don’t forget the “we know where the WMDs are … here … and here … “

If the US was truly there for democracy reasons and the Iraqis are willing to stand up and fight alongside of our soldiers and risk their OWN lives, then perhaps. But didn’t Bush state that the Iraq War would be paid for with the profits from the Iraq oil? Whatever happened to that?

Bush supporters like to try to push the war into a nice little gift of democracy, God and mom’s apple pie. But the majority of Americans now know that the real reason Bush went into Iraq was for the control of the oil. That has been proven time and time again.

————–

Or dam him. I had to read that twice before I got it Jed. We went through there (Hoover Dam) last summer. That bypass road is going to have some incredible views.

http://www.hooverdambypass.org/ConstructionPhotos/ColoradoRiverBridge(02_2008)/C-FHWA-003-862_lowrez.jpg

If needed, wouldn’t you want them there?

The story the politicans tell is called “cover”.
They do it all the time. Both republicans and
democrats. As long as we have had a congress, we have had congress people looking for cover. It’s built into almost every bill.

But of course, we don’t want to hold people responsible for what they sign (or vote on). Not much different than those people forced to sign for those sub-prime loans.

Products of public education?

This is what McCain said:

Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.

“Maybe 100,” McCain replied. “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”