H/T Media Blog

He dismisses the fact that Hussain was bribing people, hoping that anyone will buy snark instead of documentation.

He ignores when his rants are disproved with documentation, and continues to lie.

He ‘doesn’t belive we should impose democracy’ but does believe that we should just throw democracy out the window when he disagrees with what free people want and drag us to his utopia, whether he wants it or not.

So I must ask, what does Levi have against free people? When a mass murdering dictator has WMD, willingly obfuscates their status, refuses to obey international law, and slaughter women and children, he’s fine with it. When people don’t beleive as he does however, he feels that abandoning democracy is fine and they should be dragged for ‘their own good’. to his utopia.

Wow, it’s a good thing Levi’s a whiny 26 year old who doesn’t have any clue of how the constitution works. If he was an actual politician, he’d be sounding more like Che, Castro, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Stalin and Hitler, all of which wanted to drag the people to a utopia.

Yes, yes, now you’re really making sense. Saddam was spending billions on bribes to get people to look the other way at his weapons that did not exist.

Levi and his fellow ignorant fools shriek about torture, but then endorse and support regimes like Saddam’s that tortured literally hundreds of thousands of people, including children, for simply being of the wrong religious beliefs or ethnic groups.

Here you are with this second-graders’ grasps of political questions. I don’t want anyone tortured anywhere and I think Saddam was a horrible person. But it simply can’t fall to us to go around the planet making sure that no one is torturing their citizens by invading their countries and converting them to democracy. It just isn’t effective. More Iraqis have died in our war than were gassed by Saddam in the eighties, and that’s a problem.

I also would like to think that Americans want to hold a higher standard for themselves. You seem to think that since Saddam was torturing people, it’s okay for us to. Even though it’s against international law, it’s against United States law, it’s terribly ineffective and immoral, and we’ve killed about a hundred people in our custody and have scarred mentally and physically many thousands of very innocent people. These activities aren’t something that I want associated with this country. Saddam was a tryannical dictator and I am sorry that he tortured people, but there was no effective way for us to deal with that. I am much more concerned with the actions of our own government, because we should be better than that.

Got it.

Just because someone, somewhere along the line has a policy of regime change doesn’t mean you are totally justified in invading a country and making ridiculous claims to the American people about their imminent demise if you don’t.

Also, Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, and the number of people that he wasn’t able to torture and kill because he wasn’t around anymore has been more than offset by the hundreds of thousands that have been killed or maimed as a result of our invasion.

Who cares what other intelligence agencies and administrations thought about Iraq, they didn’t invade the country.

Nor did they take out Osama bin Laden even though they had multiple chances to do so. But he had sex with interns, raped women and took credit for the results of “Reaganomics”.

None of those things are even remotely true.

Except that they are:

http://tinyurl.com/v2r5

What is true is that liberals have been actively LYING to the American public and playing politics with our national security and our soldiers’ lives for far too long.

Or, more likely, given the proven FACT that Saddam Hussein was bribing the UN other governments with billions of dollars to look the other way, we should be asking why people like Levi and his fellow Obama Party members were so quick to endorse and support Saddam.

Wouldn’t surprise me if Levi was purchased. Levi and his fellow ignorant fools shriek about torture, but then endorse and support regimes like Saddam’s that tortured literally hundreds of thousands of people, including children, for simply being of the wrong religious beliefs or ethnic groups. Again, we see the liberal left and the Obama Party accusing others of that which they openly practice themselves.

So tell us, Levi; you support and endorse bribery of the UN, don’t you? Since you say that giving politicians money invariably makes them decide in your favor, that means your Obama Party and your fellow liberals were purchased by Saddam. You ignored Saddam’s behavior because he paid you. Isn’t that right, little boy?

Indeed they were.

Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons and to stop all support for terrorist groups.

The entire world has witnessed Iraq’s 11-year history of defiance, deception, and bad faith.

And that is in a prime-time speech to the nation.

In short, Levi, you lose. Again, you have been demonstrated to be an ignorant, amoral, lying fool with no grasp of what you are talking about and a complete lack of intellect or curiosity.

Also, you and your Barack Obama and fellow liberals insist that child rape is “cool” and that the people who endorse, support, and practice it are brilliant creative minds.

Got it.

Were any of those reasons that George Bush gave for invading the war? Or did he have his entire administration out there forecasting imminent armageddon because Saddam was waiting to attack?

That Saddam didn’t ‘provide data’ that he had dismantled his stockpiles is not a good enough reason to commit to a hugely expensive decade-long war. Neither is the ceasefire thing, neither is the fact that he was providing aid and comfort to terrorists. That’s why they weren’t pushed to the forefront of political discussion every day in American during the run-up to the war. Bush was saying that Saddam was on the verge of an attack, had weapons of mass destruction, was actively helping Al-Qaeda, and was responsible for the anthrax attacks in 2001. None of those things are even remotely true. It was propaganda presented to the public to enable a decision they had already made based almost exclusively on electoral politics and campaign contributors. As I’ve said many times before, it is one of the worst things an American president has ever done, and history will not judge him kindly for it.

You’ll see about that last part in a couple of decades, rest assured.

Fact is Levi, this is what is called ‘actionable intelligence’ Sadam Hussain had given no data that he’d destroyed his stockpiles. Had not lived up to his obligations on the ceasefire from his invasion of Kuwait, and was giving aid and comfort to terrorists.

I understand you’re on record of saying you don’t care how many others die so you can sleep safe at night in your knowlege that KSM wouldn’t get wet. I understand you lie to ‘support’ your point. The rest of us human beings though, like the little thing called truth.

Shall I go on?

First of all, there’s a world of difference between stating an intention to disrupt any potential nuclear weapon programs in Iraq as a matter of general foreign policy and explicitly stating that these specific aluminum tubes are for nuclear weapons and Saddam Hussein is going to attack somebody with them so we need to start a war.

Second, you don’t seem to realize how bringing up all of these other people who thought Saddam had weapons is an argument that totally undermines your defense of the Bush administration. If anything, that makes the GOP look even worse. The intelligence agencies and the Clinton administration made the minor mistake of believing something false about Saddam, then Bush came in and turned that minor mistake into one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in the history of the country.

If the evidence wasn’t strong enough for anyone in the West to invade, and then when George Bush arrives it suddenly becomes strong enough to invade, but after the fact none of the evidence materializes, you have some important questions to ask about George Bush’s motivations. Was he looking at ALL the evidence soberly and dispassionately? Was he trying to avoid a war, the way that dozens of world leaders had for years? Or had he made up his mind already and decided that pictures of him in a flight suit would make a great campaign prop for his re-election?

I think the answer there is pretty obvious. You don’t get something as wrong as the Bush administration did without willfully blinding yourself to the realities that don’t conform to your desires. Who cares what other intelligence agencies and administrations thought about Iraq, they didn’t invade the country. It’s a shameless attempt to lift the responsibility off of the Republican party and put it on somebody, anybody else. What don’t you simpletons understand about the principle that the guy that says ‘We’re going in’ takes all of the responsibility?

Oh really?

Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors….

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons….

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Lord BJ, 16 Dec. 1998

In an interim report to the UNSC July 29, the IAEA ["International Atomic Energy Agency"] said that Iraq had provided no new information regarding outstanding issues and concerns. The IAEA said while it has a ‘technically coherent picture’ of Iraq’s nuclear program, Iraq has never been fully transparent and its lack of transparency compounds remaining uncertainties. The IAEA noted Iraq claims to have no further documentation on such issues as weapons design engineering drawings, experimental data, and drawings received from foreign sources in connection with Iraq’s centrifuge enrichment program. The IAEA also reported that Iraq was ‘unsuccessful’ in its efforts to locate verifiable documentation of the abandonment of the nuclear program….

Lord BJ’s report to congress, 3 Sept. 1998

… The Security Council has made crystal clear that the burden remains on Iraq to declare and destroy all its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them.

Statement to UN Security Council 9 Sept. 1998

Shall I go on?

Fixed it for you Levi.

Hope they stick around, I want to hear them spin a lose of 140 seats in the House and control of the Senate in November.

I don’t know what you’re referring to, I am an unabashed liberal. As close as the two parties are on most issues, it’s exceedingly useless to walk around referring to yourself as an independent. Obama is not a liberal – he’s just a moron.

I too, Bruce, hope you sent them a letter explaining the reason for your cancellation. Not that it will likely do any good – but at least you can make it clear why you no longer see any value in their product. I am sick and tired of newspaper editorial boards claiming that their declining subscription numbers have nothing to do with the quality of their reporting.

We’ll turn off the light if you promise to go back under the refrigerator and munch on the insulation.

Honestly. you are s-o-o-o dedicated to establishing your independent premise and then defending it as if it were connected to some other line of reasoning. Please get a clue.

To the right the article is a box titled “MORE INFORMATION” which gives the link to a Dem web site.
(http://www.lexingtondemocrats.org/dem). No link any GOP group or web site.

James Rosen and the people in charge at the Charlotte Observer long ago stopped pretending to be objective.