30 November 2005

Arguing With Moonbats Is Fun

Here is a "give and take" I had with one of the sharks in my office reguarding the Lieberman Editorial in yesterday's WSJ.

Start at the bottom and work your way up. It is a hoot.

(I did edit out phone and email addys for the sake of sanity)

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim F O'Connell
Sent: 11/29/2005 04:37 PM
Subject: Re: Lieberman Editorial

Never mind.
So if you can't state facts just resort to name calling.
So let us agree that if you can't arue with facts let's just end it now.

I will place a bet over the next election cycle.
I bet there will be no substantial change in the party breakdown in either house of Congress.
The Republicans will propably lose here in RI.
Just to let you know that if it is �the missing Link� Vs. Sheldon I will vote for Sheldon. Because I choose Priciple over Party.

Again I thought by having this argument with a lawyer I might nave think to respond.
I guess I was wrong.

James O'Connell

----- Original Message -----
From: XXX
Sent: 11/29/2005 04:08 PM
To: Jim O'Connell

Subject: Re: Lieberman Editorial


First, Clinton has nothing to do with anything. He is history, and whether you agree or not, history will give him a higher rating than that of Bush for truth and honesty.

The rest of your conclusions are based on revisionist history that exists only in the mind of Cheney and time (by Nov 2006) will prove your wrong, unless the impeachment resolutions start earlier than Jan 2007.

Talk to you at the next election about my free lunch.


From Jim O'Connell


Do you mean the WMD's that “your President” (I didn't vote for Clinton either) claimed were there.
The intel that the Bush people used came from a CIA director appointed by Clinton, there was a week long series of debates in both houses of Congress that agreed with “the lies” as you call them. Also to say that Sadam never had WMD's is a crock. The Kurds were gassed as was the civilian populations of Iran during the war between those two nations.

Try to keep your “facts” straight.
The war to “destroy” Al-Quida was and is still being fought in Afganistan.
Even the 9/11 Commision said there was a connection between Iraq and A.Q.
Yes there was no direct connetion with reguards to 9/11 itself but that was not the only thing that A.Q. did to us.
Also Sadam had multiple connections to variuos Arabist terrorists such as Abal Nidal the man who was involoved in the highjacking of the Acquile Luaro (not sure of the spelling) cruise ship aand the murder of American Leon Klighoffer in 1985.
The infamous “sixteen words” in the President's speach asking for action against Iraq, the words about Sadam trying to “aquire” nucular weapons have been twisted so many times by your side of the issue the the fact the the President said Sadam “was trying to” not “did” aquire these things. The British stand by their reports to that effect and just because the party boy Joe “mr Plame” Wilson said it didn't happen doesn't mean that agents of the Iraqi Government weren't in Niger, a place that has only one export and
that is Yellow Cake for nukes.
OBL declared war against the US in 1993 and we were atacked multiple times both here and abroad before that day in Sept.
And reguarding “the experts” who keep telling us about the BIG ATTACK that is comming, where is it. Why haven't we been attacked since 2001?? The experts you refer to have been claiming that THE BIG ONE was due “any day now”. Again where has it been. If you want to assure an attack on US soil then let's cut and run from the good we are doing in Iraq.
And by the way good job on changing the subject.
Most of the people attacking the war, including Democrat Party Chairperson Howard Dean have said that Iraq is no better off now. So what Sen Lieberman says is the rational responce to most of the “leaders” of your party.

Also as I've already told you we are redusing troop strength already, but as to the bet I decline for the following reason. Most members of Congress will screem and yell about troop strenght because as Sen Liebermann said they will look at this war in re the upcomming election cycle not what is good for this country or the Iraqis.

Care to go another round?

James O'Connell

From: XXX
Sent: 11/29/2005 03:07 PM
To: Jim O'Connell
Subject: Lieberman Editorial

What is he on? That explains the failure of the Democratic party to lead our country with spokespersons like that.

The issue is not whether Iraqis believe they are better off now than before, but what has the war done for the security of America, and are we better off now? Let me remind you what your President and Vice President (don't blame me -- I didn't vote for them) said about the need to invade Iraq. We supposedly went there to prevent Sadam from using his weapons of mass destruction, which as we all know, did not exist. When it became obvious to the people that the BUSH "SS-Style" PROPAGANDA was a lie, the BUSH "SS-Style" Propagandists said it was necessary to destroy Al Queida.
Another lie. Since then our troops have become a magnet for thousands of new terrorist recruits, and as a majority of politicians, military and statesmen realize, our country is a hellavu lot dangerous and susceptible to terrorism than ever before. Most people now want the truth from the President. Most people believe that will experience a disaster that makes
9/11 look like a school fight.

So notwithstanding what Lieberman says, based upon the public sentiment, I will bet you a lunch that we are either out of Iraq by Nov 2006 or have started troop pullouts on a schedule by then.

No comments: