vorhandenheit

Look, what you are saying is that he never poses a case, you come to conclusions in the end right? So where's his theory then if he never posed a case for one. The news gets to edit things too, so do papers, everybody gets to edit what they want how they want to do what they'd like with a story. In the end it is always up to the individual to decide for themselves, but saying that he lied about something when you are saying he didn't pose a case is

I understand if he doesn't have time to respond or just doesn't have the energy and is grouping me inaccurately with conspiracy theorists, but that doesn't give him the right to slander everybody on the internet who disagrees with him. There are a lot of stupid people running around, yeah. But when they go and research an opinion and check it all with other books and interviews and fact checkers that he hires... well you have a well informed opinion

no, he has not. Well, that may not be fair. If he "saw" it, he paid for a ticket and sat in a chair with a screen in front of him... but based on this refusal to stop calling it propoganda and lies while being blind to the irony of the party he is supporting by such criticisms... not to mention the charges he makes about claims Moore never made... it is obvious that Drag has no interest in an informed argument. But what do I know, I'm not smart enou

Drag, first, stop calling everybody that doesn't agree with you dumb. It is inconsiderate of your fellow human being and if you really feel so above everyone else simply because of the views you hold then you are the exact sort of American that the rest of the world hates. Arrogance is not a substitute for knowledge. And, by the way, did you even SEE Fahrenheit 9/11? The oil claim is not there for Moore as you keep saying. Moore claims tha

According to Judy Woodruff's Inside Politics on CNN right now, Joseph Biden (the only congressman to have a son in the military), and Dick Durbin of my home state of Illinois have apparently made it to Kerry's no-longer-so-short-short-list. Just thought I'd pop the gossip here.

Drag, I didn't say it was all for oil. All I said is that given the information provided to Congress before the war the argument that oil played a role in the decision is not an invalid one. Personally I think Bush wanted an Iraq war from day one because of his Dad, but that's a different topic altogether. I just don't think the oil argument should be thrown out altogether as a potential factor.

Madine, of course, you are right about the difference between official policy and that of Wolfowitz... but if you'll recall leading up to the war Wolfowitz was more or less the go-to-guy for Congress if they wanted to know about the war. What I am trying to hint at is that members could have been misled in some ways to believe that the costs would not be so bad due to the oil influx in Iraq. As for Opium, granted, a very profitable trade... b

In other words, Drag, your numbers could be utterly infallible, but they are post war estimates. The Bush administration did not have those numbers going in to the war by definition. What they went in to the war with in terms of figures was what I cited from Wolfowitz. They were obviously very wrong, but the point is that the expectation of Iraqi oil profit was so great that Wolfowitz told Congress the cos

Drag... you seem to be missing the point. Iraq may not be wealthy enough from oil alone, but the impression our adminstration had is the exact opposite. That means that the war for oil argument is by no means invalid especially when wolfowitz specifically cites Iraqi oil as a cash cow to be had once the campaign is over. Your little tiff over oil being a "strategic resource" and not a "particularly lucrative resource" still baffles me. Please expla

Okay, this is getting out of hand. For one, I gave Wolfowitz's numbers to Congress on Drag's other thread to back this up. He had claimed a GDP of $50 Billion in Iraq as being sufficient to pay for the war that congress was about to vote for. We spent far more than anyone had ever estimated, and that is a testament to unpreparedness and deception on the administration's part, that does not mean that the figures somehow are irrelevant. Congress had

You miss the point, nothing in Iraq works right now, the oil wells are sabotaged frequently, the economy is not exactly up to pace with its former capacity. I am not saying we stole oil though, I am saying those figures are estimated after the country gets decimated. By the way, if we were "stealing" the oil, it wouldn't be listed as an export anyway. The figures are not showing that there is no money in oil worth fighting for, the figures show that

Just a side note Drag, seeing your list of why you are not particularly pro-Bush. All well and good it means you are more moderate as I had hoped, and it is comforting to see moderates that simply have issue with individuals like Moore rather than hardliners against all things non-republican. I just started up a thread under the title Quasi-Article #2 (since it's my second) that is a sort of working idea about the rhetoric that has been used with the

Hey Drag, did you ever notice how those exports are post-war estimates? You'd be amazed what conquering a country can do to the economy of said country. The 42% vacation stat was from a Washington Post article, you know the Post, they're your 'publican buddies. 6 Degrees of separation is a bit of a misnomer. Bush Senior's Secretary of State is hired as the lawyer for the families of the Saudi hijackers of 9/11 and the Saudi Royal Fa

Drag, for one the figures on the site you've linked to are 2003 estimates. Composition by Sector estimates are from 1993! The figures I gave are from a hearing Wolfowitz made, and I have no problem with him contradicting the CIA figures as it just vindicates suggestions that these guys aren't cooperating and are being dishonest with congress and the American people. And yes, we have spent over 200 billion despite the original number being

Hello and welcome to my second essay-length post which I have sub-affectionately dubbed a “quasi-article”. As always, what I am about to write is simply the conclusion that I have arrived at after analysis and study of a great deal of political happenings. My aim here is to inc

Drag.... you just said that oil is not a particularly lucrative resource... and you are calling others ignorant. EDIT: By the way Drag... according to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, the GNP of Iraq pre-war was about $50 Billion. That's why the oil there was going to pay for the entire war (n

Before I start, I want to say that I hope to no end that everything I am about to say is disproved by a Kerry win in November. I have always been one for moderation though, I just happen to be siding with the blues this year, so let's step back for a second and look at this race. As of yesterday / the day before that, Bush's approval rating was polled at 42% with a 51% disapproval rating. I reme

If the game only knows the statistics... you'd think florida would factor in as well as Indiana, Ohio, Oregon, etc. There are, what, 18 battleground states this time around? It isn't just Iowa and Missouri. So as far as the game mechanic goes, I think it makes perfect sense without such concerns as Vilsack (whom I feel is an awful choice for VP) or even Gephardt (whom I feel to be the third best choice for VP). By these statistics, of course, I mea

"if you're already in the looney left wing camp " "Moore is little more than just some ranting left wing idealogue " "they've elected him king of the loonies" "bullshit" ---Draginol "This is how Democrats argue. Instead of engaging ideas, generally you're either an idiot or a fool..." ---Ann Coulter (CNN Crossfire July 5, 2002) By the way Drag, some of us do keep very tedious track of day-to-day politics, and some