I was listening to President Bush’s address to the nation last night, and was struck by the following passage:
Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology. Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!
So true, so true indeed.
Mount Olympus Hiker spews:
Didn’t pay much attention to the Bush speech. More crap. I was intrigued by the results of the KCDCC last night though.
WTF? I too was oblivious to the speech. Was that really in it or are you pulling our legs?
Lemme guess… You transcribed the speech while watching it
“Independent” World Television News, right?
Zip @ 2
Yes, he made it up. See:
for the real speech.
I’m surprised you even took up a few inches of screen space talking about the speech. I know that you know that I know that you know that you’d hate it even before the President said a word — and even if he announced his resignation and the appointment of Nancy Pelosi as his replacement. [yeeesh… that gave me the creeps just typing it]
Why not cover something like this from the Times:
C’mon… start a thread on it. I dare ya!
Good catch Goldy
That’s pretty much the gist of the whole screech.
If I am not mistaken wasn’t that Reverend Moon who kept sticking his Messiah crowned head through the curtains behind him?
also did you notice the good reverend had on his Rossi pin?
Big brother is watching
or you work for Apple.
Janet S spews:
What I wonder is if those who are opposed to the war can admit there is anything good that is being done, or that has been accomplished. The knee-jerk reaction seems to be Bush is Bad, the War is Bad, the Iraqis hate us, Osama Bin Laden rules the world. Reasoned thought seems to be shut off. All I hear is polemics.
Look, we are there. What would you do now? The goal is to leave the world a better place, not guarantee the destruction of a population.
Only took 6 comments before somebody got the quote. I guess it wasn’t so obscure after all.
Goldy, so to take the Mac reference to its conclusion, in addition to Bush=Hilter we now have Bush=Bill Gates? :)
Whoops… coffee not kicking in yet. That’s Hitler (of course)…
Acutally, in reference to Hiker @1… Goldy, I would be curious to see if you had any reaction/thoughts to the KC Democrats…
Jon… that would be Bush = IBM. But no, I’m not implying that. I just wanted to make an obscure 1984 reference, and it amused me to pull the quote from the Mac ad, rather than directly from the book.
As to the KC Democrats, I intend to post some observations later today. Personally, I would have voted for Edmunds over Ferguson, because I’m damn sure Edmunds is a Democrat, and I’m not so sure about Ferguson. I was also left extremely unimpressed with Ferguson from the two County Council meetings I attended.
Goldy @ 11: Thanks for the correction, I was thinking 2005, not 1984, when IBM acutally had power. :)
Bush sure looks presidential when compared to Clinton!
Janet S @ 7
“What I wonder is if those who are opposed to the war can admit there is anything good that is being done, or that has been accomplished.”
I will not pretend to speak for all lefties, but here is my take. It is not about whether or not ANYTHING useful has been accomplished. It is about (1) Bush misleading us on the reasons for going to war (alternatively, the massively incompetent use of intelligence) (2) the fact that we went to war contrary to our obligations under international law, (3) the enormous expense in terms of human lives (U.S. and Iraqi’s) and the money spent on a war ($200 to $300 billion) that cannot be justified, (4) the Bush administration’s failure to be fiscally responsible (like raising taxes to support the cost of the war rather than pile up massive debt for future taxpayers), (5) the hairbrained planning and execution of the postwar effort, and (6) the total inability of the Bush administration to fess up to their errors and failures.
There was originally the bullshit about WMD in Iraq. The U.N. IAEA and UNSCOM knew in the late 1990s with near certainty there were no useful WMD and they knew with certainty that Iraq had absolutely no delivery mechanism that in any way threatened the U.S., short-term or long-term. But, the Bush administration also undertook a duplicitous propaganda campaign attempting to link 9/11 to Iraq. These cynical, deeply costly, and illegal actions don’t come close to being compensated for by the subtle positive benefits that have come out of our actions in Iraq.
“knee-jerk reaction seems to be Bush is Bad, the War is Bad, the Iraqis hate us, Osama Bin Laden rules the world. Reasoned thought seems to be shut off.”
It is tough to have a productive dialog when people like you buy into to the bullshit about Iraq having something to do with Bin Laden prior to our invasion of Iraq. If we wanted to track down, arrest, and prosecute people who were responsible for 9/11, then we should have done that and done it with great focus and determination. Instead, we dropped the ball on that front and got ourselves distracted by an ignorable government with a military that had been largely emasculated by years of economic sanctions and weapons inspections.
“Look, we are there. What would you do now? The goal is to leave the world a better place, not guarantee the destruction of a population.”
This is certainly a huge part of the problem, isn’t it? Iraq is a quagmire in the truest military sense of the word. As a result, more Americans will die, more Iraqis will die, billions more will be spent, and Iraq will still require years if not decades to institute any semblance of stable democracy. What a massively fucked-up fiasco!
All I see is a neo-conservative death cult that sent this country into a soveriegn nation that had never posed a direct threat to the national security of the United States.
At this point in time the Iraqi people are demonstrably worse off than they were before the US invasion. Unlike Gulf War 1 in which GHWB skillfully put together a real coalition of partnering nations who actually footed most of the bill for the military action; these ham-handed amateurs and sociopaths are destroying our young men and women at the rate of 80 PER MONTH and as taxpayers we are ponying up ONE BILLION (WITH A “B”) DOLLARS PER WEEK on little Georgie’s Middle East Adventure for which were are given no credible rationale and no real accountability. And the SecDef tells us we are in for 12 YEARS of this? I want some answers from these people. Real answers that make sense. Not this bullshit we are being fed.
You know, Janet…parts of our very own country are fucked up, why haven’t we gone in there and cleaned those. Our environment and economy are being degraded by this reign of fools. Our own people are jobless, hungry and underemployed…where is the compassion for them? Why would the “compassionate conservatives” try to CLOSE veteran’s hospitals during a conflict that is generating casualties and will be in need of on-going care. How in gawd’s name can the “CEO” management of this country create a ONE BILLION dollar shortfall in Veteran’s Administration funding. Meanwhile the very wealthiest among us are enjoying unprecedented tax cuts in a time of war and economic uncertainty…and those who dare question the ineptitude of the political party that controls ALL THREE branches of government and can’t advance ANY coherent legislative initiatives are censored. How is this an example of a Democracy in action fit to inspire others to follow our lead?
Janet, if this “conflict” wasn’t such a clusterfudge wouldn’t the good and sensible young men and women of this great country be lining up to enlist and go fight a war for freedom in Iraq so as to really help the Iraqi people? You bet they would. That’s really is who we are. But this…this just stinks…and the truth is finally starting to take hold as fewer and fewer Americans believe this President and the reasons he gave for launching this military excursion.
What would I do? Put real Iraqi’s in charge of the reconstrucion of their own country. Get the corrupt US Government fed contrators out of the way and give Iraqi’s the jobs of rebuilding their shattered country which will give THEM ownwership and something to fight for. Give them back their oil reserves. Help them restore the historical artifacts that were looted due to our poor planning and/or indifference. Apologize for screwing up their country, help them put it back together and get out (let them thank us for removing their evil dictator later). Tear down that filthy prison. Get detainees out of Guantanemo. Show the Iraqi people and the world that the United States of America respects it’s enemies and treats them fairly and brings them to justice according to the rule of law. Show them how well the US treats it’s friends, that they will WANT to be our friend. Show the people of the Middle East, if it’s not too late, that we are NOT just the next imperial colonial power using the womb of civilisation to anchor yet another dream of global empire. Just as it has from almost the beginning of time, that dream of empire will destroy us and destroy the promise that was and can be the United States…the UNITED States of America.
Rujax206: I present a congressional view of Gitmo:
www. thehill. com / thehill / export / TheHill / News / Frontpage / 062805 / gitmo.html
And while you are at it visit this link with sublinks:
www. thehill. com / thehill / export/ TheHill / Comment / ByronYork / index.html
The Hill is always good reading Mr Rujax206
hahahahaha-o-ow-ow-ow my spleen!…
courtesy of Think Progress, AWOL by the numbers:
The Rude Pundit pegs it, as usual.
You are either a complete dupe and an imbecile, or the most disingenuous poster on this blog!
WTF do you think was going to be shown to members of Congress for gawd’s sake. Oh let’s torture THIS (insert your own ethnic perjerotive here)…the Congressman will really get off on that. What kind of fool are you?
This program of interrogation and the facilities they are conducted in are emblematic to the rest of the world of the US percieved contempt for the rights of detainees. We are seen as LIARS to the rest of the world. The credibility and the moral and political capital we were given by the rest of the world after the terrorist attack of 9/11 has been squandered by this bunch of fools with their neo-imperialist adventure in the middle east.
And you are going nanny-nanny-boo-boo because some members of Congress inspected the parts of Guantanemo Rummy (what an apt moniker!) wanted them to see? Wow. I’m impressed. I guess I’m all wrong. You sure showed me. Yes Sir!!!
I am sure some good was done in SE Asia too, what is your point?
Roger Rabbit spews:
Republicans make up shit every day, so why can’t Goldy make up shit once in a while? No reason for Republicans to have a monopoly on everything.
As a former member of the Mac cult, I still have the official commemorative Macworld T-Shirt from the 90’s that recalled that ad.
Rujax @ 19
In reference to Pudster “You are either a complete dupe and an imbecile, or the most disingenuous poster on this blog!”
I certainly agree, but if only by “disingenuous” you mean “A Monsterous LIAR”.
The problem with warehousing detainee’s at Gitmo is similar in nature to the fears that were fanned during the McCarthy era. In the 50’s few people questioned the motives of our leaders if they interjected the threat of communism and our national security interest into the equation. Those who did question the wisdom of our leaders were branded “commies” and traitors.
Today, this administration has taken the politics of fear to unprecedented levels. By calling these detainees enemy combatants, terrorists or evil doers who only want to kill Americans, it automatically puts those who question the legality or morality of their actions on the defensive as being a terrorist sympathizers and/or unpatriotic. Some of these detainees are terrorists, others clearly do not. As evidenced by the recent repatriation to the country of origin of certain detainees.
We brought these people to Gitmo under the pretense that they are all terrorist. Unfortunately for some of these “enemy combatants” they were nothing more than innocent Afghanis who where captured by warlords of the Northern Alliance. Warlords who have no love loss for any Afghan and gladly turned them over to American forces to collect their bounties.
2 1/2 years later there has not been one military tribunal for any of these suspected terrorists. They stand accused, but not charged with any wrongdoing. We are supposed to be a nation of law, reason and fairness. This administration has invented new terms for prisoners to subvert international law, and keeps them off of American soil to subvert US law. Abandoning our principles in the interest of security only serves to destroy our security from the inside out. Even US citizens are being denied their constitutionally protected rights of due process under the law. Anyone deny this? Jose Padillia. Innocent or guilty matters not at this point in time. He’s innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. Let’s not deny this citizen his rights under the pretense of safeguarding our collective national security. If he’s committed a crime, then let’s try him and determine his guilt or innocence. Let’s do the same for the rest of the detainees and prove to the Middle East and the rest of the world that logic and reason are in fact, on our side.
Up to this point in time, Liberals, myself included, have strongly resisted tying Iraq to 9/11 and the broader War on Terror. The fact of the matter is, regardless of history and the facts, they are now linked. They ARE linked because the President of the United States of America undeniably linked them through military force. As if somehow allowing the link to stand would diminish the fact that Bush is a failed Commander-In-Chief. It does not diminish that stone-cold fact. Bush is the most incompetent Commander-In-Chief in our nation’s history.
Rumsfeld admits that the US was recently negotiating with insurgents in Iraq. All that proves is that war is supposed to be the LAST option. We should have talked more on the front end and not the back end. No successful military endeavor ends in “negotiations.” Look at Japan and Germany, they surrendered to our demands. Korea and Viet Nam – no surrender and look at those outcomes. Then examine the first Gulf War and Kosovo. That’s the difference between a Commander-In-Chief that knows how to be a leader, and those who are ineffectual leaders. . . Bush’s decisions have proven the latter..
Porter Goss says publicly the CIA knows where Osama Bin Laden is. What the FUCK are you waiting for? I thought this President said there would be no safe harbor for terrorists. Now we want to respect the borders of sovereign nations? Or, is it that Bush has mismanaged our military resources to the point that we cannot pursue the terrorist effectively?
So I say to my Liberal counterparts, link them together. Link all the failures together. For when you do, that chain will take you directly to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington D.C. and into the Oval Office. Where you’ll find George Bush trying his absolute best to be the Commander-In-Chief. And, then you’ll come to the correct conclusion: America CAN do better.
Like Viet Nam our military is NOT failing, our political leadership is. So, if you claim to be patriotic and support our military, then honestly ask yourself, is your continued support of the Republican leadership the best America can do? Or, for the sake of our military, and the future of our nation as the leader of the free world, should we choose new leaders who will fight a more effective war against terrorist and once and for all smash Al Qaida?
GBS – Why do you believe this has been an ineffective war against terrorists? There have been no attacks in the US since the beginning of the war. We are fighting them over there, on ground of our choosing.
RUJAX – Just so you know, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, FDR declared war on Germany. Korea never attacked us, but Truman attacked anyway. JFK got more than 2000 Cubans killed in the Bay of Pigs, Cuba never attacked us. LBJ got 60000 killed in Vietnam, which never bothered us. I wont mention Bosnia…
Fire One @ 26 “GBS – Why do you believe this has been an ineffective war against terrorists? There have been no attacks in the US since the beginning of the war.”
Do you remember the first bombing of the Trade Center in 1993? Clinton caught the perpetraters, and they are now rotting in a federal prison. And geuss what? No more Terroist attacks in the US for 8 years!
Maybe if Bush had not “forgotten about” Bin Laden for the last three years, until last night speech, we would have Bin Laden in Prison or better yet dead. But he had his sites on Iraq CREATING a terrorist training ground out of a whole country!
You think we are safer now? Do you really?
PacMan - The Best Game Ever spews:
GBS: I love how the left says we support the troops but we don’t support the CiC. We support the troops but we don’t support the mission. I am trying to determine if the job of the troops is the mission, then are you not supporting the troops being on the mission? How can one separate one from the other. You support the troops but you don’t support the paycheck they get fromn the job they do? I never heard this of the Bosnian/Serbian experiment, the Somalian experiment where some of our best men were left dangling dead by Les Aspen. Where is the outrage over those two missions? Oh yes, that’s right can’t condemn Clinton!! Where was the UN on those two missions?
Now GBS, you being retired military, I know you understand the military command chain. Do you despise Bush so much you think Kerry would have been a better CiC eventhough ~70% of the military said no to JFK? Don’t you realize if we implemented the smash Al-Qaida attack method, the Henry Waxmans, Charles Schumers, and the lefties etc. would also attack that mission? You guys say send in more troops, so then you can claim it’s a quagmire. I see it as Bush can’t win no matter what avenue he takes.
Where is this Vietnam comparison? My friends say the problem with Vietnam was they would take a hill only to give it back to take it again. We had the firepower to walk through NVM and say hello to China, but the Democratic administration of LBJ didn’t have the guts to do the job. Why? The lefties at home complaining about the war. Well the lefties are complaining about the war, and we have the firepower to do the job, but as soon as the military starts an offensive, like the one in Fallujah, what does the MSM do? They start reporting the offensive as a failure from day two. So again whatever GWB or the military tries to perform, .5 of the US population will support it. So this “we support the troops” crap makes me puke!
fire_one: Not only did you fire one, but you fired two, three, and four. Great reply!
Do you remember the first bombing of the Trade Center in 1993? Clinton caught the perpetraters, and they are now rotting in a federal prison. And geuss what? No more Terroist attacks in the US for 8 years!
You want us to forget about khobar towers, the African Embassies or the USS Cole? Lying sack of shit! Clinton was a weak pussy and we got our asses kicked by terrorist under him.
You think we are safer now? Do you really?
No more planes crashing into buildings on US soil. Yes we ARE safer now.
pbj @ 29 What part of fire_one’s “There have been no attacks in the US since the beginning of the war. We are fighting them over there, on ground of our choosing.”
Do you not understand?
What a marooon!
And pbj @ 29 “You want us to forget about khobar towers, the African Embassies or the USS Cole?”
You want us to forget 1744 (and counting) dead soldiers? 10,000 + Mutalated soldiers? Terrorist bombings daily in Iraq?
Clinton got the job done, Bush is the biggest chickenhawk pussy this country ever created!
For those of you who don’t know – American embassies are considered American soil. As are American ships at sea. I want you to understand that you cannot say “I support the soldiers, but not what they are doing” That doesn’t work. The soldiers believe in what they are doing, and are dying for it.
Also, you might note that we suffered insurgent attacks from
Germans after WWII for almost 4 years. And it took the Germans almost that long to set up their Democracy. Iraq hasn’t had a whole year yet. That is the problems. We Americans expect results NOW. We want it NOW. Well, this will require patience, dedication, perseverence, and (dare I say it) faith.
fire_one @ 33 “I want you to understand that you cannot say â€œI support the soldiers, but not what they are doingâ€ That doesnâ€™t work. The soldiers believe in what they are doing, and are dying for it.”
You may want us to understand that, but you are going to have a hard time because that is vomplete and utter BULLSHIT! I support our troops 110%, and because of that support I am working and will continue to work to get them out of this filthy criminal war started by the fucking Neo-Cons. Misuse of our honored soldiers for this BLUNDER is the most heinous act this president has committed.
Anyone satisfied to see them wasted for the pride and greed of this administration knows no honor and indeed HATES our troops. And they LOVE Bin Laden, because that is who we should have been, and should now be fighting.
Oh yeah…absolutely no evidence of Iraq alignment with al Qaeda or involvement or at least in support of 9/11. The left is left me and most other intelligent and rational people long ago.
Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?
Saddam’s intelligence agency’s efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990’s?
Mohammed Atta’s unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission’s dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?
The Clinton Justice Department’s allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.
Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam’s henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?
Saddam’s hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?
Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?
Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden’s fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?
Saddam’s official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?
The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?
Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)
Terror master Abu Musab Zarqawi’s choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?
Saddam’s Intelligence Service running a training camp at Salman Pak, were terrorists were instructed in tactics for assassination, kidnapping and hijacking?
Former CIA Director George Tenet’s October 7, 2002 letter to Congress, which asserted:
Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.
We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.
Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
Iraq’s increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad’s links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.
So some of the most vocal and idiotic Democrats are “offended” at the president’s reminding us of 9/11? The rest of us should be offended, too. Offended at the “nothing whatsoever” crowd’s inexplicable lack of curiosity about these ties, and about the answers to these questions.
Just tell me one thing: Do you have any good answer to what Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was doing with the 9/11 hijackers in Kuala Lampur? Can you explain it?
Another TJ spews:
For those of you who don’t know – American embassies are considered American soil.
Therefore, the claim that the U.S. has not suffered an attack on our soil since 9/11 is not true:
Another TJ spews:
Sorry about the link. Just cut and paste it.
IDGAF @ 35 …. get your head out of your ass. The crap you are spouting has long ago been thoughouly debunked as the horse crap it is.
“Mohammed Attaâ€™s unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which ï¿½ notwithstanding the 9/11 Commissionâ€™s dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) ï¿½ the Czechs have not retracted?” —– The 911 new it was a lie, BECAUSE the Czech government addmitted it was untrue way back in 2002
But a fact like that will not detour you rightwing Kool Aid addled brain.
Then you start a lot of paraphrasing of initial findings from the 911 commision report (which you above distrusted… are you internally confused?) but refuse to acknowledge that the CONCLUSIONS of the 911 committee found NO OPERATIONAL CONNECTIONS between Iraq and AL Queda.
But, you just post what you hear from your Neo-Con Puppet Masters, right?
Then the BIG question: First you state “Ahmed Hikmat Shakir ï¿½ the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11” and then you ask “Do you have any good answer to what Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was doing with the 9/11 hijackers in Kuala Lampur?”
Sure. Answer from the 911 Commission report (you should actually read it sometime!)
Commission Report: Mihdhar was met at the Kuala Lumpur airport by Ahmad Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi national. Reports that he was a lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi Fedayeen have turned out to be incorrect. They were based on a confusion of Shakir’s identity with that of an Iraqi Fedayeen colonel with a similar name, who was later (in September 2001) in Iraq at the same time Shakir was in police custody in Qatar.)
So you see, IDGAF, your entire contention is UTTER HORSE SHIT AND DAMNED LIES!!
Lets count: 16 of the 911 hijackers were Saudi’s, NONE were Iraqi. Osama is a Saudi,and one Iraqi national (citizen) attended a meeting in Kaula Lampur.
Conclussion: IDGAF you need to quit listening to the people who love to lie to you. And stop hating America and support our troops! Get them out of a quagmire started by a pac of Neo-Con LIES!
You have alot of anger issues dont you Donna? Perhaps it’s a result of the fact that you’re such an open minded liberal that what small little pea brain you had, has long since fallen out. I out of compassion for you suggest you actually get a job, a life and take a long deep breath to smell the UTTER HORSE SHIT AND DAMNED LIES!! that the little open space in your skull seems to willing accept from How-Wierd, Dean Nancy Pelosi and others. I do however owe you and your ilk a huge thanks in advance for the forthcoming overwhelming Republican victory in 2008!
Nice comeback IDGAF… oooh I am devistated. :)
And BTW IDGAF, when it comes to our soldiers and asshole Neo-Cons putting them in harms way based on lies… I do get pretty angry, you American hating, US Troop hating, Bin Laden loving Jerk!
IDGAF @ 39
There is one undeniable link between Saddam Hussein and Bid Laden. Both of them received support from the United States in their military efforts at roughly the same time: Bin Laden for efforts to defend Afghanistan against USSR, and Saddam for his efforts in his war against Iran. Go figure!
Screw you fascist asswipes! Sure…you can take any of our argumants and pick pick pick pick pick. With your stupid little half relevant/irrelevant little pickypoints. Well 1744 of YOUR fellow countrymen are dead and thousands are maimed and wounded because little captain codpiece didn’t have the nuts to fight in a real war like his daddy did and the poor little man felt he’d never be a “real successful” president unless he won a war. He’s a pissant and a coward who went awol on the frickin’ National Guard during the Viet Nam war so he wouldn’t have to take a drug test. The National Guard! The repository of the “fortunate sons”. He didn’t even have the balls to follow the Swift Boat Liars into the rice paddys to watch a real war hero take one in the leg. Don’t you guys get it…all the crapheads agitating for these wars never saw one second of combat. Did their level best to avoid service to the country they so profess to love. I’d have SOME respect for these turds if they weren’t such GD hypocrites. And you veterans defend these butchers. WTF! They are liars through and through and after you are of no further use to them…they’ll sell you out too. I’m with Donna…you guys get me apoplexic. Go jerk off among yourselves while this whole (mis)adventure takes this country down the tubes. You can have your corny pretend president. He’s just another fat cat Korrupt Krapdealin’ Konservative to me.
this isn’t even funny anymore. shitheels.
He’s a pissant and a coward who went awol on the frickin’ National Guard during the Viet Nam war
Yeah rujax you tell… and we liberals have the documents to prove it… shittt!!!! Nothing more funny then seeing a donk spew hot air out of his ass.
RUFUS @ 44 “(Bush is) a pissant and a coward who went awol on the frickinï¿½ National Guard during the Viet Nam war”
I agree completely, RUFUS!
headless lucy spews:
Even the fact that Bush got in the Nat Guard ahead of 200 people who should have gotten in first tells the whole story.
PacMan - The Best Game Ever spews:
Loocy: good to see you out of the shell. Yes, money does talk and BS does walk. You (Full of BS) been walking today? Where did you get your education again? Still waiting for the response!
RUFUS: You did say that sarcastically right? The documents you refer to are the Rathergate memorandums? Rujax206 – So the Swift Boat Veterans are liars? I am still waiting for Kerry to meet
Rujax206 & Don(naahhh): I am going to ask some questions of you both. Please try to answer with a cogent argument. Maybe you will need David or DJ or JSA to perform the critical thinking part because all Don does is spew two conclusions from the 9/11 report and has not refuted the Senate Report, and Rujax206, you hate Bush so much your eyes are red.
1.) The Czech’s BIS (similar to our FBI) has not dismissed the meeting to this day! In 2002 some Czech officials said they discounted the meeting but when we captured the Iraqi Ahmed Al-Ani in late 2003, the Czechs stuck to their original story, but it hasn’t been widely reported. We do know that many thousands of $$$ was transferred to his bank accounts after the first Prague meeting in 2000. It is propoganda by your side from Newsweek, Time, LA Times, Philly Enquirer, New York Times, Wash Post, and other lefty newspapers called the MSM who wanted to discredit the story. Rumsfeld told Novak he was not sure if the meeting occurred.
2.) Why did Al Zarqawi flee to Baghdad after his Afghanistan battlefield injuries? Safehaven for terrorists?
3.) Why did Zarqawi swear allegiance to Bin Laden? Why did Zarqawi have free run of Baghdad to recruit?
4.) If Richard Clarke in 1998 told Sandy Berger of the link and Clinton bombs the Sudanese medicinal factory and Clinton says there was a link between Bin Laden and Hussein (Husayn), do you discount it?
5.) You all spout off how Clarke supposedly warned Dr. Rice about bin Laden so how can you accept this is factual but #4 is false? Either Clarke told the truth in question #4 or he also lied about his Dr. Clarke conversation. Which is it?
6.) Why do you want the US to pull out and fail like we did in Vietnam? If we pull out don’t you think the jihadists and whacked out islamofascists will declare victory and come over here to start their war?
7.) No one wanted to take on my earlier question of LBJ’s lack of will to rout the NVM due to your older cousins and brothers protesting Vietnam. Wasn’t it Goldwater who said bomb the hell out of them? Now some on your side say bomb the bad Iraqi guys like we did to Japan. Why the change of heart?
8.) Why do you all call Iraq a quagmire? Yes we have lost over 1700 good men and women in this conflict, but nowhere is this loss of life close to that in Vietnam.
9.) Why isn’t there more vocal support of the Grand Aytollah Sistani, who repeated said Islam is compatible with democracy? Do you support the Zarqawi position, who espouses the same beliefs of 9/11 hijackers & Osama Bin Laden that Islam is a religion of violence? I ask who’s ideology do you want to win out?
10.) You Gitmo haters still haven’t answered my previously posed question. I’ll ask again: If you all think our treatment of Gitmo prisoner is so bad, why don’t you volunteer to take one of these nice individuals in your home to house and feed them? I am sure he will accept your kindness with such high esteem that he will renounce his islamofascist tendencies!
11.) Didn’t Bin Laden say the Iraq war is important to his side? If Bin Laden’s side loses it will deal a potential death blow to islamfascists. So whom do you really support?
Thank you PacMan – couldn’t have said it better myself…
Bush: No evidence Saddam Hussein involved in Nine-Eleven attacks
Rice: U.S. Never Said Saddam Was Behind 9/11
Rumsfeld sees no link between Saddam Hussein, 9/11
Wolfowitz: Iraq Was Not Involved In 9-11 Terrorist Attacks, No Ties To Al-Qaeda
Brent Scowcroft, one of the Republican Partyâ€™s most respected foreign policy advisors;
“Don’t Attack Saddam. It would undermine our antiterror efforts. There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks.”
Allies Find No Links Between Iraq, Al Qaeda
“What I’m asked is if I’ve seen any evidence of that. (Iraq links to al Qaeda) And the answer is: I haven’t.â€ -British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who supports U.S. invasion & occupation of Iraq.]
British Intelligence agencies, MI6 and MI5
A dossier prepared by the two agencies â€œshowed no discernible links between Iraq and al-Qaida,â€
Richard Kerr, a former deputy CIA director who lead an internal review of the CIA’s prewar intelligence;
â€œthe CIA has not found any proof of operational ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime.â€
The White Houseâ€™s own publication, A Decade of Defiance and Deception, makes no mention of Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda.
The 2002 congressional joint intelligence committeeâ€™s report on the Sept. 11 attacks revealed that the Bush administration had no evidence to support its claim that Saddamâ€™s government was supporting al-Qaeda.
No proof links Iraq, al-Qaida, Powell says
According to a “top secret British document”, quoted by the BBC, “there is nothing but enmity between Iraq and Al Qaeda.” The BBC said the leak came from intelligence officials upset that their work was being used to justify war.” (quoted in Daily News, New York, 6 February 2003).
Three former Bush administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues have told National Journal that the prewar evidence tying al Qaeda to Iraq was tenuous, exaggerated, and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.
“â€¦analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war, government officials said.”
“At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration’s insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden|s network. “We’ve been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don’t think it’s there,” a government official said.”
This is consistent with what they were saying back in October 2002.
“There’s absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever.”
-Richard Clarke, former terrorism chief under bush.
Iraq-al Qaeda ties have not been found
bush’s own hand-picked Republican weapons hunter ISG, Dr. David Kay;
David Kay was on the ground for months investigating the activities of Hussein’s regime. He concluded “But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all.”
He called a speech where Cheney made the claim there was a link, as being “evidence free.”
Israeli intelligence (the Moussad)
â€œAccording to Israeli intelligence, Palestinians are still not connected to the global terror network, and neither is Iraq.â€
bush’s second and final hand-picked Republican weapons hunter ISG, Dr. Charles Dueffler;
Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq, no capability since 1991, no evidence of ties to al Qaeda, no serious threat;
OFFICIAL VERDICT: WHITE HOUSE MISLED WORLD OVER SADDAM-AL QAEDA TIES
No evidence of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties: 9/11 commission
“CIA Review Finds No Evidence Saddam Had Ties to Islamic Terrorists”
NO ties between Iraq and international terrorists, al-Qaeda or otherwise:
1. Central to the Saddam – al Qaeda connection claim is the assertion that Czech authorities had evidence of a meeting between one of the September 11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent in Prague in April 2001.
Both Czech President Vaclav Havel and Czech intelligence refuted this report.
More than that, so do the FBI and CIA; Only one problem with that story, the FBI pointed out. Atta was traveling at the time between Florida and Virginia Beach, Va. (The bureau had his rental car and hotel receipts)
This lie of BushCo’s was debunked last year. But to this day, members of the Administration cite the Prague report as evidence of an Iraq – al Qaeda connection.
2. Cheney also claimed that 1993 World Trade Center bombing co-conspirator Abdul Rahman Yasin had received â€œfinancingâ€ and â€œsafe havenâ€ from Saddamâ€™s government.
You have to really love this one…yeah he did. Sort of. He was in an Iraqi JAIL from 1994 until shortly before the invasion;
“He was being clothed and fed by them so long as he wore stripes,â€ joked one U.S. investigator.
Yasin had hopped onto a plane for Iraq. He was picked up by the Iraqi police a year later and had been held without a charge placed against him. Iraq had twice offered to deliver him to the United States, but only upon written receipt that Iraq had given him upâ€¦ “like a receipt for a FedEx package”
but the US refused the offer.
Yasin was picked up by the FBI a few days after the bombing in an apartment in Jersey City, N.J., that he was sharing with his mother. He was so helpful and cooperative, giving the FBI names and addresses, that they released him.
Yasin says he was even driven back home in an FBI car.
The FBI agree, saying they decided to let Yasin go free.
Yasin, whose picture is on the FBI Web site along with Osama bin Laden, is one of President Bushâ€™s 22 most-wanted terrorists.
3. Ansar al-Islam, a radical Kurdish group, whose leader lives a free man in Norway, after 2 FBI interrogations found nothing to even declare him an “enemy combatant”.
Of course there’s that other pesky little fact, that Ansar al lives in the Kurdish north of Iraq, out of Saddam’s control and under Kurdish AND AMERICAN control for the past 13 years.
Iraq had no ties to al Qaeda, and nothing to do with the 911 attacks
Remember when we made peace I said I expected more substance from you in your replies to me? Well, this is one of those times, my friend. The central point that you failed to address is this: Is this President making the absolute best decisions to win this war as fast and as effectively as possible? Yes or NO.
Ooooppps my bad you did address it @ 28
“Don’t you realize if we implemented the smash Al-Qaida attack method, the Henry Waxmans, Charles Schumers, and the lefties etc. would also attack that mission? You guys say send in more troops, so then you can claim it’s a quagmire. I see it as Bush can’t win no matter what avenue he takes.”
Bush can’t win no matter what avenue he takes. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Thanks for making my point so eloquently
When I say I support the troops, I mean I want them to have all the armor they need. Since this war is of the place and time of our choosing, I want the leadership to make sure that my troops go to war with the army they need and want, not the army they have. When I say I support the troops I mean I support their mission. But I want the mission to be clear, with well defined goals, and a leader who can get meaningful long-term support from our allies and a realistic exit strategy. I want a CIC who can level with the American people and not have Dick Cheney saying the insurgency is in it’s last throes, only to be contradicted by the Sec. of Def., the CO in theater and the fact that the insurgency is growing stronger. I want the VA Hospitals to be OVER funded, not under funded by $1.2 billion. The Dem’s saw the train wreck coming, the Rep’s didn’t care to acknowledge it because Senator Patty Murray tried to resolve the problem before it became a problem. Dem’s have their eye on the needs of our troops, while the Rep’s are voting down that VA support on a party line vote so Paris Hilton can afford another helicopter. We have vets waiting anywhere from 6 months to 3 years to get their treatment. You support Rep’s so you support that. I, for one, do not agree with you that our troops should get 2nd class medical treatment. Sorry, PacMan, today, you are on the wrong side of history.
You completely ignored the fact that Porter Goss “knows” where Bin Laden is, but Bush, as CIC, is respecting other nations borders and not going after Bin Laden. That’s Bush’s call as CIC and Bush’s alone. How do you reconcile your support for that?
Your rhetoric “Don’t you realize if we implemented the smash Al-Qaida attack method, the Henry Waxmans, Charles Schumers, and the lefties etc. would also attack that mission?” ONLY goes to prove my point that Bush has NOT implemented the smash Al Qaida military option. HELLO cricket brigade.
This is the last time I’m going to go back 4 decades to draw some meaningless comparisons for you regarding Viet Nam. The lesson in Viet Nam was NOT taking a hill and then leaving two days later, then going back and retaking it again one week later, then. . . There is no way we could have won that war unless we went nuclear. The reason being the NVM were fighting for the freedom and independence from a foreign power. To borrow from W. Churchill, they were never, never, never going to give up. We never, never, never should have been an occupying power trying to impose a government over a country who rescued downed American pilots during WWII and provided us we lots of intel on the Japanese. You and I would never stop fighting a foreign occupier in this country. Why would you expect the NVM to surrender? The mistake we made in Viet Nam was deploying our military when it wasn’t the proper place or time to exercise that option. That was the mistake of Viet Nam in a nutshell.
The most important lesson to be learned from Viet Nam is not which president screwed the pooch the hardest because Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, and Nixon all had a hand in the debacle. What we need to understand is that using our military might prudently is the most difficult decision the CIC can make. No other decision tougher than that one.
Bush is failed CEO no matter where he’s been. Do your due diligence and show me where that statement is wrong. So, yes, regardless of the military vote, I believe, Kerry would have been a more effectual CIC than Bush.
Firing_Blanks @ 26. Do your due diligence, too. Terrorism has been on the rise worldwide since this failed CIC launched the War on Terror. Start with the State Department. I’m not doing your homework for you. You spout off your rhetoric that there hasn’t been one terrorist attack here as if that’s the benchmark in the War on Terror. It took 8 years between attacks on the Twin Towers, it’s only been 3 1/2 years since the last attack. What makes you so sure there won’t be another? Bin Laden is on the loose. Terrorist are learning how to be more effective in the battleground that is Iraq. They are exporting that new found skill to Afghanistan and God knows where else. Korea has gone nuclear on Bush’s watch, Iran is in the process of going nuclear on Bush’s watch, and the idea of spreading democracy in the middle east because Iraq had an election is bogus. Look who Iran just elected as their new leader. Some guy who’s all warm and fuzzy over the US. WOW. Democracy is on the march in the middle east. Marching towards radicals who hate America and have their finger on nukes. Yep. We’re safer. NOT.
PacMan - The Best Game Ever spews:
Hello GBS: How are you today? Well I hope.
I have not said Bush may have not made some mistakes. Maybe he has, maybe he hasn’t. History will be the full guide. If GWB succeed in making a democracy in Iraq, what will that say to the world? I remember Europe saying Bush may be right earlier this year. I thought the Europeans hated GWB. So if they can begin to see the reality of Iraq going democratic the American left can’t. Where is the basic understanding that we are the good guys and the islamofascists are the bad guys? If the islamofascists are the good guys, call the White House and take a Gitmo resident home. Surprisingly none of you will do that, so I guess the Gitmo residents must be the bad guys. The Gitmo US General told Congress some of the Gitmo residents sent to their home countries have returned to Iraq or Afghanistan to battle us again. BTW we have recaptured some of them, which has been documented by some of the MSM.
You said: “When I say I support the troops I mean I support their mission. But I want the mission to be clear, with well defined goals, and a leader who can get meaningful long-term support from our allies and a realistic exit strategy.” I commend you on that, because there are others here on HA who do not see it as you do.
Well lets go back to September 2002. Hilary, Chucky, Johnny, Charlie, Harry and others asked for and signed this resolution which says:
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in “material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations” and urged the President “to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations” (Public Law 105-235)
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Now lets take a deep breath over Vietnam. It is your side that continues to make the comparisons and will NOT LET IT DIE> You accuse me of exhumation of Vietnam. No my friend your side only has that war comparison. They continue to use it because they know their screaming and demonstrations turned public opinion against it, such that Nixon had to attend the peace negotiations to end the war. I will drop Vietnam from my conversations with HA bloggers when the MSM, Howard “Primal Scream” Dean, Teddy “I Missed the Bridge” Kennedy, Nancy “I Forgot to File” Pelosi and others stop making the comparison. My children used to watch Captain Planet. He made a comment “The decision is yours”. Tell the MSM it’s their decision to stop using the Vietnam template.
I will be back I have a network issue to overcome.
PacMan - The Best Game Ever spews:
Don, only you continue to dwell on Saddam and 9/11. No one else does. I haven’t, righton, chuck, RUFUS, fire_one, Cynical, have not either. Go take your meds.
PacMan @ 47 “Rujax206 & Don(naahhh): I am going to ask some questions of you both. Please try to answer with a cogent argument. Maybe you will need David or DJ or JSA to perform the critical thinking part because all Don does is spew two conclusions from the 9/11 report and has not refuted the Senate Report, and Rujax206, you hate Bush so much your eyes are red.
1.) The Czechâ€™s BIS (similar to our FBI) has not dismissed the meeting to this day! In 2002 some Czech officials said they discounted the meeting but when we captured the Iraqi Ahmed Al-Ani in late 2003, the Czechs stuck to their original story, but it hasnâ€™t been widely reported. We do know that many thousands of $$$ was transferred to his bank accounts after the first Prague meeting in 2000. It is propoganda by your side from Newsweek, Time, LA Times, Philly Enquirer, New York Times, Wash Post, and other lefty newspapers called the MSM who wanted to discredit the story. Rumsfeld told Novak he was not sure if the meeting occurred.
2.) Why did Al Zarqawi flee to Baghdad after his Afghanistan battlefield injuries? Safehaven for terrorists?
3.) Why did Zarqawi swear allegiance to Bin Laden? Why did Zarqawi have free run of Baghdad to recruit?”
PacMan @ 52 “Don, only you continue to dwell on Saddam and 9/11. No one else does. I havenâ€™t, righton, chuck, RUFUS, fire_one, Cynical, have not either. Go take your meds.”
PacMan, you are now revealed as a LIAR With your own words spread over a less than 2 1/2 hour period.
PacMan, I would ask you to take your meds, but I fear there are no meds for LYING!
PacMan @ 47
1) The meeting took place. Bush is still not conducting the best war strategy possible. Allied support is crumbling. Do your homework and report back how many of our allies have pulled out to date and how many are scheduled to pull out in the next 12 months.
2) Hussein supports terrorism. Check out the payments made to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. Bush is still not conducting the best war strategy possible. Allied support is crumbling. Do your homework and report back how many of our allies have pulled out to date and how many are scheduled to pull out in the next 12 months.
3) See my answer at 2)
4) We do not discount it. Clinton had his eye on Bin Laden at the time when great dangers were gathering against America. Rep’s were focusing on Clinton’s zipper saying this incident was purely a deflection by Clinton away form the Monica scandal. Which was more important? Who was right? Richard Clarke apparently, so that goes to prove Bush admin ignored the Flashing Red Lights and Hair on Fire and Clinton telling him that Bin Laden was going to be his biggest problem. Bush should have read the Aug. 6 PDA as a threat and not a “historical” perspective as Condi thought it was. Can you say Ineffectual? I thought you could. Bush is still not conducting the best war strategy possible. Allied support is crumbling. Do your homework and report back how many of our allies have pulled out to date and how many are scheduled to pull out in the next 12 months.
5) 4 is not false. Clarke told the truth. Ummm. . . I guess the good doctor is doctoring the truth. Bush is still not conducting the best war strategy possible. Allied support is crumbling. Do your homework and report back how many of our allies have pulled out to date and how many are scheduled to pull out in the next 12 months.
6) Nobody wants to pull out, except the rep. congressman who coined the term Freedom Fries. He wants a timetable to pullout. I guess he wants the war on his doorstep. Bush is still not conducting the best war strategy possible. Allied support is crumbling. Do your homework and report back how many of our allies have pulled out to date and how many are scheduled to pull out in the next 12 months.
7) Viet Nam = failed foreign policy. The absolute destruction of a former ally in WWII, frankly, doesn’t make sense to me. Stop with the grandfather clause already, PacMan. It’s old, irrelevant, and rhetoric without teeth. You can’t find one honest Democrat who wants to dishonor our troops. Drop it already. Not all of our relatives were protestors. As I said in an earlier post destroying nameless, my brother was wounded in action in Viet Nam. Now drop the protestor shit. Bush is still not conducting the best war strategy possible. Allied support is crumbling. Do your homework and report back how many of our allies have pulled out to date and how many are scheduled to pull out in the next 12 months.
8) The number of casualties does not equal a quagmire. In this sense the definition of a quagmire is:
A difficult situation: an awkward, complicated, or dangerous situation from which it is difficult to escape. Will you call it a quagmire only if we exceed 57,000 casualties. Given the current pace of fatalities 1744 deaths / 27 months = 64.59 casualties per month. Multiply that times the number of years your misleaders keep projecting, then get back to me on the “when is it a quagmire” question. Bush is still not conducting the best war strategy possible. Allied support is crumbling. Do your homework and report back how many of our allies have pulled out to date and how many are scheduled to pull out in the next 12 months.
9) I don’t want any religious zealots ideology to win out, any where. Particularly the Christian Conservatives who have no problem using the cover of religion to falsely attack Democrats i.e. Sen. Frist attending “Justice Sunday” attacks. Bush is still not conducting the best war strategy possible. Allied support is crumbling. Do your homework and report back how many of our allies have pulled out to date and how many are scheduled to pull out in the next 12 months.
10) Here’s your Gitmo answer, an excerpt from my post @ 25 “We brought these people to Gitmo under the pretense that they are all terrorist. Unfortunately for some of these “enemy combatants” they were nothing more than innocent Afghanis who where captured by warlords of the Northern Alliance. Warlords who have no love loss for any Afghan and gladly turned them over to American forces to collect their bounties” I don’t want them to come to my home, I want the guilty to face a Military Tribunal, shoot the guilty and send the innocent to THEIR HOMES. Bush is still not conducting the best war strategy possible. Allied support is crumbling. Do your homework and report back how many of our allies have pulled out to date and how many are scheduled to pull out in the next 12 months.
11) Bin Laden most likely made those remarks. I’ll accept your word on it since I know you’re an honest man. Here’s a quote from my post @ 49 “You completely ignored the fact that Porter Goss “knows” where Bin Laden is, but Bush, as CIC, is respecting other nations borders and not going after Bin Laden. That’s Bush’s call as CIC and Bush’s alone. How do you reconcile your support for that?” Don’t you think we should implement the “SMASH AL QAIDA” idea? So if you support our troops, wouldn’t you want to deal that potential “DEATH BLOW” to Bin Laden and this islamofacists and get this war over with as quickly as possible so that they are not dieing under an ineffectual CIC who, for whatever reasons, won’t go after Bin Laden, even though Porter Goss knows where he is?
Now PacMan, I know I’m not the smartest man in the world, but it seems to me that we’ve found common ground.
Smashing Al Qaida = Killing Bin Laden
Killing Bin Laden = Dealing death blow to insurgents in Iraq.
Dealing Death Blow to insurgents = American troops leaving combat zone.
Leaving combat zone = not dieing at 65 soldiers per month or wounded at over 500 per month.
Not being killed or wounded needlessly due to ineffectual leadership = support for our troops.
“1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 YOU’RE OUT!!”
“An amazing comeback by Rocky Balboa in this final round, pummeling Apollo Creed unmercifully until he was knocked unconscious by an monstrous uppercut of truth. But it was the amazing body blows of answering his questions that led to his defenses dropping using logic and reason that helped bring the end of the bout. Creed was knocked off his feed, his body went limp and he was out before he hit the canvas”
“His trainer, Fire_Duds, is trying to revive Apollo in the ring but they are calling for the stretcher. This doesn’t look good for Apollo Creed. This could be his final bout with the big boys. If he can continue his career it most likely will be barroom brawls.”
GBS @ 54 regrding PacMan “Iâ€™ll accept your word on it since I know youâ€™re an honest man”
I must disagree. IF you will look at his post @ 52 PacMan states that I am the only person to “continue to dwell on Saddam and 9/11.” This is not a differene of opinion we have, nor is it just a mistake. Given the amount of verbiage on the matter in this thread, I must conclude that PacMan is very far from being an honest man. In fact I must state unequivocably that he in fact is a liar.
Watching it speak, I could perceive little beyond: It is reading. It believes the words mean something. It is trying to make facial expressions that mean something. It smirks when it thinks it has done the reading good.
Later, around 10:30, I found a good assessment of Bush’s speech on the animated sitcom “King of the Hill”. It was the episode where Hank Hill, (the repressed father figure), got in trouble for mooning an ex-governor of the state of Texas.
If John Kerry were in the White House today, a sensible timetable for withdrawal would be in place; one that restored the respect people around the world once had for our United States government. Neo-conservative leaders are tyrannical, malignant misanthopes orchestrating WWIII as if they have no other choice. As president Bush said when asked what people in the future may think about his presidency, “It doesn’t matter what people think. We’ll all be dead”.
I think the “Mooning an ex-governor of Texas” assessment of his speech applies perfectly to every one of them.
PacMan - The Best Game Ever spews:
People can’t configure their systems and then blame the network infrastructure.
Looks like Apollo Creed has staggered to his feet. He’s shaking out the cobwebs. Rocky Balboa’s shoulders are drooping, and he looks despondent. Apollo is gestering to Rocky to come get some more. The fight continues.
IT (Don), you are a narrow-minded bigoted left-wing bigot. David, I apologize for my next few words. Hey Don, shove my words up you ass, along with the butt plug now occupying your sphincter. Tehn and only then will you be able to conprehend my words vs. what you think you read. Now that we’ve cleared the air on Pea-Brain Sized Don, again you are overreaching in your analysis of my commentary. I said the reason we talk about 9/11 and Saddam is not because Saddam attacked us, it’s because he harbored Al Qaida terrorists. Isn’t that what the Democrats in Congress said in the September 2002 Resolution? Damn IT (Don), think out your argument! That’s all I have said, and if you read GBS’ response to Question #1 after your shit, he admits it too. I’ll trust arguments from GBS over anything you write, eventhough I disagree with GBS as man to man. So IT (Don), you sorry excuse for a creature of God, get a life.
GBS: I appreciate your answer attempts. I will accept your complaints of GWB from your point of view BECAUSE I CAN put myself into your shoes and look at it from your reference frame. But can you DO THE SAME? THat’s what an open-minded person can perform over blatering idiots of IT (Don).
I seem to remember Sandy Berger and Lt. Col Patterson saying in 1996 while Clinton was attending Wimbledon, we had Bin Laden in the crosshairs and Clinton WOULD NOT PULL THE TRIGGER. But Mr. Clarke forgot about that incident.
Regarding you contunual repeating:”Do your homework and report back how many of our allies have pulled out to date and how many are scheduled to pull out in the next 12 months.” What does this prove? We went to the UN under Democratic pressure, some countries chose to participate, now they are saying they want to leave. The ones who chose not to participate gave weapons to Saddam after the weapons embargo; France, Germany, and Russia!
Sure there is one Republican who wants us to pull-out. He is up for reelectiona dn wants to stay. But you seem to forget Nancy Pelosi’s statement Monday night saying the president needs to give us a pull-out time table. How about John Kerry’s wonderfully composed NYTimes editorial for a time table? So that refutes that argument.
Why does your side like to equate the Christian Right to the Taliban and islamofascists? Does the CR behead their enemies? Does the CR put a bullet into the heads of their enemies? You tell me to stop the Vietnam protestors argument, well you stop that comparison of CR to islamofascists. As I said earlier, the MSM is leading the comparison of Vietnam to Iraq and also leading the protestations. It’s your side who supports the ACLU destroying all of the judeo-christian religious symbols that have been in our American heritage since 1776 DoI signing. What does the first paragraph of the DoI say?
If the Gitmo detainees are such model world citizens, why are they going back into battle? Your argument is amazingly simple and shallow. Take one home then GBS. Take one home Don. I choose to let the military deal with them.
I think Porter Goss was stupid to say what he did. It was irresponsible. But that being said, why are we looking for Bin Laden in Afghanistan?
GBS, we do have common ground. As soon as Bush implements the Bin Laden scorched earth policy, your side will complain again. You missed my reference that Bush can’t do anything right. He can’t do anything right on your side! Many of us like his policy of killing the islamofascists over there except many HA lefty posters. Let me know when you all call DoD for your “Take a Gitmo Resident Home.”
Oops, another problem needing PacMan to eat up.
PacMan @ 57 after some childish bad words said “I said the reason we talk about 9/11 and Saddam is not because Saddam attacked us, itâ€™s because he harbored Al Qaida terrorists.”
Yes, and if you can get someone to read my post to you you will see that I answered every one of your fake claims.
As for GBS, I have no problem with his opinion. I have a feeling his letting you have just enough rope for you to hang yourself with.
Oh, and by the way PacMan, once you have some one read my posts to you, I will be open to accepting your apology.
Good afternoon, PacMan.
I’m doing great and busy as all get out. So I can’t spend much time here until after the 4th of July weekend for sure. Finally getting some of that nice weather. You know summer doesn’t officially start in Seattle until the 4th of July.
Rocky gestures to Apollo and says “Want some? Get Some!”
OK, I lied. I am going to exhume Viet Nam one more time, but if this isn’t the absolute last time, it’s getting close.
When you bring up Viet Nam you generally use it as a way to lump Liberals with a segment of war protestors who didn’t support the military. And then use that as a line of questioning as to how we could possibly be associated with the Democrats. I know where you’re coming from on that issue and I as I’ve said before much love and respect and remorse from me to yours. I’ll stand shoulder to shoulder with you on that one and I got your back if anyone challenges that. Period. But logic and reason are not on your side when you play this card. Because no honest Liberal then, or now, does such acts. Under the surface of your assertion there is anger. The anger is justified, the assertion is not. Logic and reason will never coexists with anger. You have to divorce your emotion from what really happened and ask yourself honestly: Did every war protestor hate the military? No. Was every war protestor a Liberal? No. Do Liberals today hate our soldiers? No. Is any soldier returning from war, any where, being spit on and being called “baby killers?” No.
But saying all war protestors were Liberal and all protestors hated the military is a lot like saying all Republicans are members of the Ku Klux Klan because David Duke ran on the Republican ticket. It simply isn’t true.
When Liberals bring up Viet Nam we are drawing the comparison between what ineffectual political leadership produces in a time of war as compared to what superior leadership produces in a time of war. Take the leadership provided by FDR to America during WWII when FDR’s leadership brought us through the most difficult challenge to America’s survival with the single exception of the Civil War. I will submit that WWII was a greater threat to our survival than the current War on Terror. In Viet Nam there were serious lapses in judgment from the political leadership of both parties. No reasonable, principled person would disagree with that. Mentioning Viet Nam produces difficult dialogue because of the negative images it conjures up. The truth is that in life, like raising kids, the most difficult conversations are the ones we must have.
So the question about drawing comparisons over Viet Nam isn’t about the logic of taking Hamburger Hill then relinquishing it. The question is should we be there in the first place? The answer for Viet Nam was NO. But, If the answer in the future is ever ‘yes’, then for God’s sake, unleash the dogs of war and smash the enemy on the way in and have a clear plan for not just winning the military campaign, but the post combat logistics, too. It has to be an end to end strategy for winning a permanent peace. If the strategy doesn’t exist or isn’t coherent, then the answer on deploying the military is a resounding NO. If the answer is Yes, then it’s also about being a strong enough of a statesman and leader on the world’s stage so that you can get our allies on board for the long haul. But when it becomes apparent that you lack foresight, vision and strategic planning, our allies will eventually abandon us, as is happening right now, PacMan.
We did not strategically plan an effective war plan end to end for either Afghanistan or Iraq and our soldiers are paying the price for it right now as we exchange barbs over the internet. Somewhere in Iraq a Humvee is driving by an IED and (BOOOOOM) some kid just lost his life, another lost an arm, someone else lost both legs, most likely someone just got the living shit burned out of them. Why? Because Bush didn’t plan this war out very well and we are taking more causalities than is necessary. Most certainly, Bush did NOT heed his father’s memoirs regarding the reasons why he didn’t go to Baghdad during the 1st Gulf War. Not to say Iraq didn’t need to be taken out, but the adage “there’s a time and a place for everything” fits perfectly well here. Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. Done properly, Iraq becomes the right war, right place, right time. That, my friend, is the difference between effective political leadership during a time of war and ineffectual leadership during a time of war.
We will win this war, but GOD DAMN IT, supporting bad foreign policy and insufficient war planning set forth by the president is NOT supporting our troops. In fact, doing so is the exact opposite.
Becareful what you ask for because you just might get it. Bush asked to be CIC, now he’s got it. The buck begins and ends on his desk and no where else. Everything else, Liberals, protestors, MSM, Democrats, Pakistan, respecting borders blah, blah, blah are nothing more than pitiful a excuses. And in a time of war, excuses out of the oval office, just won’t cut it.
You said “Does the CR put a bullet into the heads of their enemies?” Uh, bro, try hanging around an abortion clinic like your girlfriend needs one. I only have one piece of advice for you: “Kevlar Helmet.”
Yep, bin laden was in Clinton;s cross hairs, but at that point 9/11 hadn’t happened and all bets were NOT off. Unlike the situation today. There were women and children at that gathering and Clinton elected not to kill them. Nor did Clarke forget that incident, he’s said so on the Tele – Vision box.
My repeating question proves the gist of my point here. Ineffectual leadership in the oval office is costing us support from our allies, who are leaving in droves. Which places more strain and burden on our military, which means more casualties than is necessary. Which means everyone is going to look at us like the dumb asses we are when Iran or Syria get their turn in barrel.
OK, I gotta get out to the Indian reservation and buy me a whole mess of illegal fireworks and blow ’em up for America as is our families tradition. You won’t find firework stand in California like you do here. Unbelieable shit. So I won’t talk to you until after the 4th. You be safe, have fun, love a Democrat this weekend to show your unity, and I’ll knock you out again next week.
We’ll battle later Apollo. What should we call it? Thrilla in Manila, naw already taken. How about Battle in Seattle, no, no that won’t due WTO already got that. I Know how about the Pounding by the Bay? Absolutely not, you know who is going to get all creamy and lay down the mondo snail trail and start having wee-wee talk with Mayor Jim West.
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Stop the parade.
PacMan! I’ve just reread what you said @57. Did you really say “Apollo is gestering to Rocky to come get some more. The fight continues.” Then bust into a rant about butt-plug talk, shove my words up your ass and spincther talk.
Yeck! I don’t care who you were saying that to. That was way, way too close to me for comfort.
You know what you need to do, Mister! You march down to the men’s room right now and put some soap in that potty mouth of yours! Oh, yeah, you’re on 30 minute timeout. Sit in the corner with your hands folded and think about what you said. When your time is up you can rinse the dirty, dirty soap from your mouth.
Then, when you say your prayers tonight you ask Jesus to forgive you for such a nasty tirade, young man. Now, down to the men’s room. NOW!!
Oh, my, God. You’re killing me PacMan.
I can’t let this one go @ 57 “If the Gitmo detainees are such model world citizens, why are they going back into battle?
Here’s another quote that I’m taking at face value because I know you’ve done your research and this actually happened — bad guys get captured, bad guys to to Gitmo, bad guy leaves Gitmo, bad guy battles our soldiers again, possibly killing or maiming some of our guys.
Is that the gist of your comment? I believe it is.
Riddle me this PacMan. If they’re going back into battle, who let the real terrorists out of Gitmo in the first place without a military tribunal, or a firing squad?
A) The Left-wing bias media.
B) Nancy Pelosi
C) Al Franken
D) An arbitrary decision by low level private, say PFC England.
E) Or did someone higher up the food chain make this decision.
Now here’s a clue for you. Answers A-D support your theories.
Answer E supports my theory of ineffectual leadership during a time of war.
Chose wisely. You may want to consult with Google on this one.
PacMan @ 57 Too many gems to ignore here. Damn it! I’m too busy for this stuff today. But it looks like OT tonight.
@ 57 “It’s your side who supports the ACLU destroying all of the judeo-christian religious symbols that have been in our American heritage since 1776 DoI signing. What does the first paragraph of the DoI say?It’s your side who supports the ACLU destroying all of the judeo-christian religious symbols that have been in our American heritage since 1776 DoI signing. What does the first paragraph of the DoI say?”
OK, here’s the 1st paragraph. I copied it from:http://www.archives.gov/nation.....cript.html
I hope it’s right. Do you think Karl got his eraser and pens out and changed the DOI? Me either.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
OH yeah, right there, verbatim “Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ” and “Thou shalt honor thy Judeo-Christian heritage, especially the ACLU”
The only contradictory part is the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God ” those damn Druids. Always butting in to contemporary Juedo-Christian values. Damn their May King!! why I oughta. . . OH, shit what am I thinking about??? Isn’t there a difference between the Declaration of Independence on the Constitution which governs the people of this land?
And isn’t also true, MR. PACMAN, that on the 17th of September, in the year of our Lord, 1787, that the Constitution of our great land was drafted?
And, isn’t it also true that this governing document also went into effect on the 4th of March, 1789?
And, for the record MR. PACMAN, isn’t it also true that the any reference to God is stricken from said governing document, sir?
I submit to this court of public opinion that any reference to God IS stricken from the Constitution of the Untied States of America, as referenced by the prestigious Law School, at Cornell. A prestigious Ivy League school where young minds enter like large globs of mindless grey matter and depart this fine institution of higher learning with the wisdom, intellect, and philosophy of the Ages.
Behold: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ constitution.table.html Read, if you dare. Beware, you will be asked for a donation particularly you alumni’s. And, you know who you are.
Well, that clears it up for me. Thanks, PacMan.
OK, really this time. No more reading your posts today.
Oh crap, stop it. Please!
You @ 57 “I think Porter Goss was stupid to say what he did. It was irresponsible. But that being said, why are we looking for Bin Laden in Afghanistan?”
I don’t know why we are wasting lives, time and resources running around stinking Iraq. We need to be wherever Porter Goss knows Bin Laden to be.
OK, let’s see if I can connect the dots.
Porter Goss knows where Bin Laden is (*)—————— and reports to the CIC aka President Bush (*)——————–President Bush is the only person in the WORLD who can order Rumsfeld to launch a military strike against not so secret location of Bin Laden.
All right, PacMan, now that I’ve connected the dots I’m with you on this one. Why is the Commander In Chief continuing look for Bin Laden where he clearly is not? Doesn’t seem to . . . to. . . oh, damn what’s the word I’m looking for? Ah Ha, “effective.” That’s the word! Doesn’t seem to effective does it?
GBS @ 59 said: “We will win this war, but GOD DAMN IT, supporting bad foreign policy and insufficient war planning set forth by the president is NOT supporting our troops. ”
Insufficient war planning? (bad foreign policy – maybe, time will tell) As for planning, military plans rarely survive contact with the enemy. The thing that makes our military successful is the ability to overcome and adapt to a changing battlefield. The other thing is the ability of NCOs to take over and get the job done in the absence of an officer. I want our soldiers home more than you will ever know. I hurt when I see some of my comrades being killed. But I support them AND their mission.
We have not been attacked, but that doesn’t mean I support the formation of Homeland Security. In fact, I am ashamed of GWB during 9/11. He should have landed and stood on the front lawn of the White House and said “Here I am, come and get me” We need to do away with airport security altogether. We need to do away with Homeland Security dept. They can’t kill us all…
Don’t live scared GBS…. and don’t do too much OT. As for foul mouthed, yelling, etc., I think that does less to change peoples minds than anything else on these boards, so thanks for being civil.
Enjoy your weekend.
One question for GBS, PacMan and fire_one: When you talk about “winning this war”, which war are you exactly talking about? The Iraq war? The war on terror?
My reponse does not matter which definition you choose, only the way I demonstrate my opinion. We will never “win” either of them.
Donna – I am inclined to agree we will never win the war on terrorism. I think we will be fighting it around the globe for the next twenty years. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight it. I believe (as opposed to GBS) that Vietnam taught us you can’t win a war for “hearts and minds” You can only stomp cockroaches.
fire_one @ 66 Yes, of course, you fight it. Intelligently, in the right places, and with the right tools. I have no doubt in my mind that the Bush administration has done none of these things. We are fighting in a reactionary way, in the wrong country, and with the wrong tools. Fighting terrorists during a civil war in a country that was no threat to us, and just throwing poorly armoured body after body at the growing problem is sensless. And a complete misuse of the best soldiers on the planet.
And while you do fight terrorism, you never will win. You can only hope to keep it from spreading, and remain one step ahead of it.
The Iraq war is the antithesis of this approach.
Donna – We did not have armored Hummers in Desert Storm, but we do now. Do you know why? Because technology changes. If we develop an electromagnetic pulse gun tomorrow, does that mean we don’t fight a war until every soldier has one? Of course not, we march on, adapt, overcome, as we always have. We had no planes or tanks at the outset of WWII. We didn’t wait. We took B24s, put em on a carrier and hit Japan with what we had. The planes didn’t have the range to make it back so they crash landed in China. Should we have waited till ’45 when we had the B29. Of course not.
As to wrong place, well, I gotta tell you, I am not happy about being there. I am not happy about no WMDs (even though apparently even Saddam believed he had them). But we have liberated Iraq, and Iraq is as good a place as any to stomp cockroaches.
and that’s it. i am on the east coast with too many cervezas in me and tomorrow is a travel day. be back in seattle tomorrow. you guys are so lucky to be there every day….
enjoy your weekend. salute a soldier.
righton good night, have a good trip back to heaven right here in the Puget Sound.
“We did not have armored Hummers in Desert Storm, but we do now.” Actually it has nothing to do with technology, much more to do with poor planning and completely immoral priorities. And our vehicles in Iraq are still largely unarmoured.
@70 righton should read “fire_one”
I apologise to fire_one for the egregious error. :)
fire_one @ 68 “I am not happy about no WMDs (even though apparently even Saddam believed he had them).”
Saddam very much knew he had no WMD weapons. He stated that emphatically many times. I think you might be refferring to the lack of concrete documented evidence for their destruction.
The middle East is a dangerous place. (understatment of the year). And while Saddam knew he could not have WMDs (That is why he allowed inspections to continue) but he did not want to leave no doubt in the minds of his neighbors (Iraq, Al Queda, Syria, etc) So he played a coy game at saying truthfully he had no WMDs, and still left enough doubt to ward of an attack from his neighbors. And while we had inspectors in Iraq he was in a bottle. We could have left (We could have DEMANDED) that the inspectors stay indefinitely, thus keeping Iraq completely harmless for 1/10000th of the cost we are no incurring and ZERO loss of life.
With that we could have continued the REAL fioght against terrorism in Afghanistan. If Bush had not blown it we would have one imprisoned, or better yet dead Bin Laden.
Bush blew it big time and he needs to acknowledge his horrific mistake, get the troops out (replaced by the UN Forces), and resign. Our standing in the world will improve, Al Queda will no longer have it’s poster boy for recruitment (Bush), and our forces can be used more honorably and successfully fighting the real terrorism war, rather than being targets in the largest terrorist training camp in history.
PacMan - The Best Game Ever spews:
GBS: I had to let off some steam, so I apologize to you about my comment to Don. Fire_one, Don is a man, as he said he had a male appendage in another thread. I welcomed him to the male fraternity in a circuitious way.
Don: GBS never says anything he didn’t mean, so there was no rope to hang me on. He understands what I said about Iraq and Al Qaeda and nothing regarding 9/11. You keep dwelling on that!! Also since you like to dwell on WMD, you never answered my question on all the other liars who are heads of state? Why is that Don? Also if you review the tapes, you will determine that the Chief Swede Inspector Hans Blix said in January or February 2003 at the UN Security Council paraphrasing that he was not sure if they didn’t have them. So there is you rope and noose, just pull the lever and dangle for all of us!
GBS: Okay, here is my feelings on this whole thing. I have never told anyone because of my strong support of our CiC in wartimes. I may even have some of my friends email you about my support of Clinton when he sent troops to Bosnia, eventhough now I was right about my reservations and we are still there as an occupying force.
First off everyone, hindsight is 20-20. If you look at WWII we did some real blunders yet, IKE, Patton, Bradley, McArthur, etc. came out looking well in history. Schwartzkoff said he made a couple of blunders in Desert Storm and he is looked well in history. I think Paul Bremer didn’t do some things right. Getting rid of the Iraqi army was one of them. 2nd, he could have paid for some great intell, which I have read he didn’t want to do. Did Rummy investigate the use of IEDs, I doubt it. From what I have read from military sources, they never conceived of this type of hostility. Also, I was not happy when a buddy’s son told of the ammo dumps being unguarded. It really sickened many of us to know that those weapons could fall into the wrong hands. But with all that said, and knowing what happened in WWII and Korea and Vietnam regarding blunders, bad recon, bad intell, friendly fire incidents in all of those wars, I still support our CiC, the troops, and the mission. Things happen in conflicts. Some things you learn from the mistakes and you do better. I watched a prime time interview last week where the people modifying the humvees are doing 200 a month. Now what has the enemy done? They fashioned their IEDs to maximize firepower at the Humvee, and that’s how some convoy deaths occur today, even in armored humvees. Please check it out. Better yet call Brian Suits at KVI.
Going to bed. Long day. What’s this crap about fireworks at Indian Reservations? Hey not fair. I thought WA State was PC. Well maybe not the reservations.
PacMan lied @ 73 “… what I said about Iraq and Al Qaeda and nothing regarding 9/11.”
Keep telling yourself that PM, Maybe you will convince yourself it is true and then there will be one person who believes your lies.
bush is a little cocksucker prince…
Just like all the “conservative” young people
that don’t enlist.
ENLIST, you fucking pussy!!! “Oh, my pussy’s
bleeding. I can’t go to war.”
Cunty little fucks!!!