DebateGate

"A guy who judges before all the facts are in. One who hates gays"

Enough facts like guilty pleas relating to sex in an airport restroom are in.

Can you provide evidence that Mitt Romney "hates gays"?


"Correct me on this, but is it the business of the president to denounce gays who are accused of soliciting sex in bathrooms?"

It is the job of candidates to denounce people involved in his campaign when they plead guilty to offenses relating to sex in airport restrooms.


"A good candidate would simply not comment on this"

A good candidate unloads "trash" as soon as he/she becomes aware of guilty pleas instead of making excuses for people like Sandy "I steal national security documents in my pants" Berger.

Bush warns Middle East risks nuclear 'holocaust"

August 29, 2007
Agence France-Presse

US President George W. Bush overnight warned that letting Iran acquire atomic weapons risked putting the Middle East "under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust".

"Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust," he told a veterans group in Nevada.

Mr Bush's speech to the American Legion aimed to convince a war-weary US public that the war in Iraq was the central front in the fight against what he described as the Sunni Muslim extremism of the al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Shi'ite extremism fuelled by Iran.

"Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere, and the United States is rallying friends and allies to isolate Iran's regime to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late," he said.

Tehran denies seeking nuclear weapons and says that its atomic program means to provide civilian power

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22325978-401,00.html

Baird defends new position on Iraq

Monday, August 27, 2007
By MICHAEL ANDERSEN Columbian Staff Writer

Two weeks after deciding to oppose a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, Rep. Brian Baird said he thinks that most of the country agrees with him.

"I have to believe that there is a quiet majority of people out there who think the war has been a terrible mistake, but they sure don't want to see us lose," he told The Columbian's editorial board Monday morning.

Even so, Baird said he expects a verbal beating from anti-war constituents at public forums tonight and Tuesday night.

In May, Baird supported a bill that would have required troop levels to start falling by Oct. 1. But his perspective changed after a visit to Iraq in early August.

"One of the colonels over there said, 'Sir, we're going to need time,' " he recalled. "And I said, 'I'm going to try and get you some.' "

Whatever Congress may do, Baird said, a simple shortage of troops will likely force generals to order a drawdown by April.

But that's a military issue, he said. Politicians in both parties should avoid mandated withdrawals.

"Crocker and Petraeus -- they're the people I respect in this," Baird said, referring to the U.S. ambassador to Iraq and the top military general in the war.

If the military finds a way to extend troop levels beyond April, Baird said he'd support that, barring other major developments.

Anti-war group moveon.org says it expects 100 local activists at tonight's town hall meeting at Fort Vancouver High School, including veterans who have served in Iraq.

The 7 p.m. meeting is in the high school auditorium at 5700 E. 18th St. in Vancouver.

Tuesday, a similar meeting will take place at 7 p.m. in the Cowlitz County Expo Center at 1900 Seventh Avenue in Longview.

"Somebody said to me, 'Oh man, you're going to get killed tonight,' " Baird said Monday. "I said, 'No, they get killed in Iraq. I'm going to get criticized.' "

Criticism will also come from Democratic colleagues, he said. He's swimming against a current of politicians in both parties calling increasingly for withdrawals.

Baird said he based his decision on private discussions with Iraqi, Iranian and Jordanian leaders and on two observations that he said had been infrequently debated:

* The chance of regional chaos, should neighboring nations' troops be drawn into the conflict.

* The notion that talk of a U.S. pullout has Iraqi political players "retrenching" to maintain their power rather than seeking the common ground that would be needed for a stable government.

To succeed, Baird said, Iraqis must agree on how to share oil revenue and must finish re-hiring the former Baath party members removed by U.S. officials in the occupation's early days.

Baird voted in 2002 against the use of military force. He has never been more certain that the invasion should never have happened, he said Monday.

Nuclear inspections and flight restrictions on Saddam Hussein's government would have kept his regime from harming the U.S., Baird believes.

"We had him contained," he said.

http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/08272007news189511.cfm

"You're an idiot, pal, without a rightful place in this club"

yes gipper, liberal cartoons good
conservative cartoons bad
keep repeating that to yourself
maybe someone will think you have credibility

to take a phrase from you: "you are kidding, right?"
when i said "I don't want to bomb anyone"
it is like when a father says he does not want to spank his son
but sometimes he does what he does not want to do to correct poor behavior

"so then you want to bomb the countries into poverty"
uh no that is not at all what I said, but continue reading what you what to see


"Hm. I wonder what the long-term consequences of that will be"
Hm. I wonder what the long-term consequences of "cut and run" will be.


"So your evidence that something which did not happen would not have have been tolerated is, in fact, that it did not happen.
Okay, I'm glad we cleared that up"

Yeah maybe it was just an accident that people did not take up arms for an insurgency against the german/japan occupation
i suppose after an atomic bomb the people supporting japan and wanting to help them fight an insurgency against the US occupation were lined up to help. again, total destruction of an enemy is usually the best weapon against insurgency. you can't fight war with one hand tied behind your back to please the New York Times and Micheal Moore. why are there no insurgents in the United States? Because they know what would happen. Why is there very little insurgency in Iran? because they will be destroyed. Insurgency feeds on weakness, feeds on hesitation, feeds on the faint hearted. abe lincoln knew how to deal with insurgents. It would not have worked to "cut and run" from the South. it would not have worked to cut a pact with the South. the only way was destruction. you in fact are a product of a country (the USA) that totally destoyed an enemy(American Indians) in order to eventually found a 50 State nation. Then again your country used the destruction of an enemy to preserve the Union that cost 500K lives. The US is not alone. Many, many countries were founded after a war and after a destruction of an enemy that wanted the same land and/or power. It may not be pretty, but it's reality.


"After the bombings, Iran and Syria stop supporting insurgents in Iraq"
correct in Iraq and also stop supporting many, many, many other Islamic groups elsewhere in the world


"After Iran and Syria stop supporting insurgents in Iraq, what happens then?"
the democrats might be in trouble
the insurgents would be hard pressed to find similar funding, training, arms, munitions, and intel
the suicide bombings (80% foreigners) would greatly diminish and the NY Times would have less headlines.
the Iraqi military would be much better able to handle the situation
if the insurgents support/funding dried up they would be more likely to cut deals and lay down their arms
the world community and capital would be more likely to flow into Iraq
imagine that. capital flowing into Iraq instead of Iranian IED's
what would help the Iraqi people more? Capital or Iranian bombs?

"What do you think will be the consequences in the Middle East?"
alot more positive consequences than if the US "cut and runs" leaving a killing fields in Iraq and a possible Iranian style theocracy that will begin exporting arms/funding/support/training similar to the Islamic Theocracy that runs Iran at the present moment.

"Will the terrorists go into hiding?"
will they go into hiding if we "cut and run"?
they will have less arms, less munitions, less funding, less training, to threaten democracy and americans
there will always be terrorists
but you can greatly marginalize them by cuttiing off their funding/training/support/intel from the only Islamic Theocracy
if you "cut and run" you could very well have two Islamic Theocracies side by side sitting on a cash cow of oil reserves that will fund
many more Hezbollahs.

if Iran has a next door neighbor Islamic Theocracy in Iraq, and they are both loaded with cash, and both emboldened by a US retreat are you saying that would mean less terror in the world? A new Islamic Republic would mean less funding of new Hezbollahs to deal with? Less suicide bombing around the world? Less threats of shutting down the Persian Gulf and our gas at $10 a gallon? How much poverty would $10 dollar gas cause?

Can you answer what the consequences will be if we have an "Iran Jr" in Iraq after we "cut and run" and not just one Islamic Republic meddling and funding Islamic revolution, but two? With the US in retreat how long before that would become 3 Islamic Theocracies? Would you defend Saudi Arabia if Iraq rolls in there with Iranian Revolutionary Guards side by side? Egypt? Jordan? UAE? How much poverty, death, money would those new fronts of war cost? You think Iran after tagging Iraq is going to go into hiding and not want more?

"Will they increase in number?"
Will the terrorist decrease in number if we "cut and run"?
don't you think they will be emboldened ?
will they suddenly all become choir boys if we "cut and run"?
i think they don't increase in number because funding, training, arms, munitions will have greatly dried up
others will be leery to fill the support shoes, knowing they could suffer the same fate

"Will the economic downturn in Iran and Syria have any ramifications?"
short term sure, and so will "cut and run" have ramifications too.
But with Iran not exporting terror and not exporting destabilizing proxie groups there could be a influx of investment capital from all over the world. Iran has alot to offer if it behaves, and the world would respond.
plus if Iran is spending all that money at home instead of funding proxy wars it could actually help the economy and Iranian people

"Will America have to engage in nation building in Iran and Syria?"
Why would there need to be nation building when you are just destroying the military?
Plus if Iran's military is destroyed Syria will come quick to the bargaining table
Most likely Syria would not have to be touched

"What events do you think will follow this Clintonian series of air raids?"
In my opinion if Iran and Syria's militaries are destroyed, (Syria's may not have to be) they are both no longer a threat to Israel. Hezbollah trained, organized, and funded by Iranian Revolutionary Guards basically collapses as a threat in Lebanon and to Israel. Syria no longer meddles in Lebanon. Syria would be under great pressure to make peace with Israel. Basically 4 countries (Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Israel) are no longer a huge threat to world peace.

take the test that was passed to me via an e-mail

Questions: 

1.  True or False?   The Anti-Iraq War Protests are spontaneous eruptions of true American discontent with the War -- its objectives, its means, and its results so far.


FALSE.


These Anti-War protests are carefully planned by professional organizers to maximize press coverage, and to give the "illusion" that they are "spontaneous eruptions of true American discontent".  Soldiers now in Iraq need to be the most concerned with this; their lives may actually depend on it.


In fact, organization for "the wave" of protests set for next week has been in the planning stage for months.  The operational phase begins August 28, (right around the corner from the probable positive Petraeus surge report ) and it will receive massive press coverage. 


2.  True or False?  The protesters you see on television are just ordinary Americans, making huge, personal sacrifices of time and money just to let the Country know how much discontent there is over the Iraq War.


FALSE.


Many of these protestors are just doing the jobs they were paid to do - nothing more.  The only difference between "them" and honest Americans working in factories and offices, in civil service and schools, is that their job will get them on the network news - and yours will not.  Their job is to convince individuals in our American Congress that they will "face political extinction" if they do not "help end the War" - NOW.


Some of these protestors you will see on your televisions and in your newspapers have been "on the payroll" of a massively funded group of 527 organizations all summer.  They are being paid $400 cash per week PLUS "free" housing PLUS "free" gasoline.  For the past 3 months, they have been in the "professional demonstrator" training program that includes the following:  "training in political messaging, earned media, legislative tracking, grassroots organizing, visibilities and other campaign tools."   


Do your own Google search:  Americans Against Escalation in Iraq.  The above quotes were taken from the "Iraq Campaign" website, and are the remarks of Tom Matzzie, the director of the Washington, D.C. office of MoveOn.org.


3.  The signs carried by the protestors are original sentiments, and represent the true feelings of the vast majority of American citizens regarding the War in Iraq, and the current Surge, in particular. 


FALSE.


The signs carried by the protestors were designed by professional advertising gurus, at substantial expense to the "backers," and should be considered with the same skepticism one uses when viewing a commercial for Budweiser or Cheerios. Corporate commercials are actually much safer, because Americans already know they are biased to sell more beer. These protest signs, on the other hand, are very dangerous, because they are professionally engineered to appear to represent the true and original convictions of the persons carrying them for free media advertising.

4.  True or False?   "Americans Against Escalation in Iraq" is in reality a "multi-faceted, multi-million dollar effort," designed specifically to "target" more than 60 members of the American Congress who are blocking end-the-War-NOW legislation.  They are essentially paid lobbyists.


TRUE.


The group uses those precise words to describe itself right on its very own website.  The only reason that the networks and newspapers will not tell you about this when they report on the "demonstrations" is that - they feel no "truth-in-reporting" obligation to more fully inform you.  If you indeed get most of your "news" from the mainstream media, you should be so warned now.

5.  True or False?   Most of the financial backers of this professional "wave of demonstrations" (that are professionally designed at great expense to appear unrehearsed, unprompted, unorganized and honest) have the best interests of all Americans at heart, and truly want to see our forces win a decisive victory in Iraq, thereby substantially weakening the resolve of our enemies and ensuring greater safety and security for all Americans.


FALSE.


The primary financial backing for these demonstrations is provided, through a highly deceptive network of 527 tax-exempt organizations, by a multi-billionaire, naturalized American citizen, whose stated aim in life is to destroy the entire concept of Nation States and establish a one-world oligarchy.  His name is George Soros.


MoveOn.org


Center for American Progress


Center for American Progress Action Fund


Media Matters


Independent Media Institute


Center for Investigative Reporting


Center for Public Integrity


TruthOut.org


Independent Media Center


This deceptive web that makes one voice - Soros' voice - appear to be a majority of voices, and represents  an act of psychological warfare.  Many prominent media figures sit on the Boards of these various "Soros Voice Machines."  Bill Moyers, for instance, sits on the board of Soros' Open Society Institute.