Correct Peace Symbol




For supposedly being so much smarter than conservatives, a lot of peace activists don't even know how to draw a peace symbol.

And for supposedly being smarter than liberals, a lot of conservatives label the reason we went to war with Iraq as "terrorism" but cannot name a single act of terrorism they supposedly committed in the last ten years....

Seriously, what is the point of this thread? It engages in no intelligent dicourse whatsoever, and its only purpose is to make illogical connections. Just because one girl forgot a stick on her peace symbol, all of a sudden liberals are dumber than conservatives?

Seriously alias, you're starting to replace Lucidthots and IntangibleChild.

I see it all the time. I just found a couple to use for an example. Liberals are stupid, just like foundit. Complaining about conservatives and Iraq incessantly but somehow always forgetting or conveniently not remembering what dems said:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"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 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"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 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

http://tinyurl.com/9eoax

This isn't the "flaming" thread alias.
If you want to pretend to be a victim of all the "liberals" bashing you, it would be best if you wouldn't bash them like this.

Just a thought...


Give me a break.
We can sit around and point fingers all day.

How about the Republican statements regarding Clinton's Kosovo war?
Oh yeah. You dropped that thread.

How about the Republicans efforts to hinder Clinton in his efforts to attack terrorism?
Oh yeah. You ignored that too.

The problem is not just "dems" forgetting, but BOTH sides being too caught up in partisan politics to effectively make this country better.

And you alias are part of the PROBLEM. Not the solution.
The sooner we hold BOTH parties accountable for their actions the sooner we get a better form of government for all.

After all, the Republicans have had a majority in both sections of Congress AND held the Executive branch for HOW LONG now?
Shouldn't all our problems be solved?
Oh wait. They're blaming the DEMOCRATS (who are a minority vote) for the nation's woes...

And you're buying that???
The title of your thread says it all...

The bottom line is Clinton had Osama offered to him and he didn't take him. The result? 09/11. Live with it.

Osama was "offered" to Clinton.
Why did Clinton not take the offer?
One of the earlier articles hinted that he didn't want to embolden Osama by a failed attempt on him. Clinton already had one such failure before this.

Clinton could best answer why he didn't take the offer, but I have seen no answer to date.

But none of this even remotely addresses what I said.
It only detracts from it. Which is the partisan ploy that you use...

It is idiots that divide this world instead of trying to build it up...

It's idiots that believe the lies of Bill Clinton and will not support our nation when we are at war. Clinton was treating it like a police problem and said they couldn't charge him with a crime. You can't admit Clinton fucked up. Now tell me who is the idiot?


"Sudan offered to give bin Laden to Saudi Arabia, which would have meant his demise. But the U.S. didn't push the Saudis to accept, so bin Laden went to Afghanistan instead, giving him the safe sanctuary that would be crucial to his 9/11 plot."

And ABC News even reported that Janet Reno too turned down the 911 mastermind (my emphasis):

"Federal agents seeking bin Laden had developed a plan to have a plane fly in and attack a compound in Kandahar, Afghanistan, where the terror leader was believed to have been holed up back in 1998 — three years before the devastating attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But when the plan went up the chain of command for approval, it was killed by then-Attorney General Janet Reno. 'They came to the decision that this plan was probably too dangerous, that the loss of life on the ground would have been significant,' (former FBI agent Jack) Cloonan said. 'There was concern that people around the bin Laden compound would be killed.'"

http://lyingliar.com/lies/clintonosama.htm

You are. I thought that was clearly understood by you, me, and everybody else on these message boards...
I never denied that Clinton made a mistake. I admit Clinton made a mistake.
But you just can't help but pretend that you know my opinion and everybody else's opinion before we actually give it.

Can you show me where Clinton said he was treating it like a "police problem"?

And once again, you have completely failed to address anything I said.