Embedded TIME Reporter: Bush Lied In Speech Yesterday About Iraqi Security Forces
Embedded TIME Reporter: Bush Lied In Speech Yesterday About Iraqi Security Forces
Yesterday, President Bush claimed that Iraqi security forces “primarily led” the assault on the city of Tal Afar. Bush highlighted it as an “especially clear” sign of the progress Iraq security forces were making in Iraq.
The progress of the Iraqi forces is especially clear when the recent anti-terrorist operations in Tal Afar are compared with last year’s assault in Fallujah. In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition battalions made up primarily of United States Marines and Army — with six Iraqi battalions supporting them…This year in Tal Afar, it was a very different story. The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces — 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support.
TIME Magazine reporter Michael Ware, who is embedded with the U.S. troops in Iraq who participated in the Tal Afar battle, appeared on Anderson Cooper yesterday. He said Bush’s description was completely untrue:
I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda. They were not leading. They were being led by the U.S. green beret special forces with them.
Watch it:
Sen. John Warner (R-VA) who was also on Anderson Cooper yesterday said “I respect those journalists that embed themselves and I accept as a credible description what you’ve just put forward.”
Full Transcript:
COOPER: You know this is not one of the shows where we take sides. I really try to just look at facts on the ground, and the President in his speech talked about the battle of Tal Afar. And in his speech today, he said that it was led primarily by Iraqi security forces, eleven Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support. He used this as compared to the battle of Fallujah as an example of how much better the Iraqis are doing. Earlier, I talked to Time Magazine’s Michael Ware, the Baghdad bureau chief who was embedded during the entire battle. I want to play you what he said about the Iraqi units he saw.
WARE: I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda. They were not leading. They were being led by the U.S. green beret special forces with them. Green berets who were following an American plan of attack who were advancing with these Iraqi units as and when they were told to do so by the American battle planners. The Iraqis led nothing.
COOPER: Do you think the president was correct in saying that this was an Iraqi victory, that the Iraqis were leading the way?
WARNER: Well, I’ll let the commanders sort that out but I - first I respect those journalists that embed themselves and I accept as a credible description what you’ve just put forward. But you didn’t hear him say they cut and run like they did in Fallujah. You didn’t hear him say that the Iraqis dropped the arms. He said they were fighting. Now it may well have been that the battle plan was drawn up by the coalition forces, probably the U.S. leading.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
BushCo = Liars
December 1st, 2005 at 11:04 amPLEASE tell me that our Preznit didn't just lie...Isn't lying to the public a crime? I can't imagine our Preznit lying to us. Unfathomable. I just won't believe it. Couldn't have happened.
Sarcasm thick....
December 1st, 2005 at 11:06 amEvery word out of Bush's mouth is a lie. Heck, if he hiself said he was drinking again, I don't think I'd believe it. However, if he said he was back on the junk...
December 1st, 2005 at 11:08 amLie? OMG they actually used the "L" word (and I don't mean liberal). It's about damn time!
December 1st, 2005 at 11:09 amThe more people in America see how much Bush lies and distorts reality the sooner they'll rise up against him. I think we're seeing some of it now with his poll numbers.
But I've got to say, in Europe, where the media is not slanted to the far right, they've known all along just how much Bush lies, spins, and distorts. It's about time America wakes up to truth!
December 1st, 2005 at 11:11 amWhat he said wasn't a lie. It is assumed that U.S. special forces will be embedded themselves in Iraqi units for a while. What the President was that it was an Iraqi unit action, not an American unit action and not an action led by the American military. This WAS an Iraqi orchestrated event, with just American soldiers helping the Iraqi force.
What the hell is wrong with this anyway Think Progress? Why do you want us and the Iraqis to lose and suck in Iraq? Do you think things will go better if a Hillary Clinton or Howard Dean junta are in power in D.C.? Regime change in Washington Think Progress doesn't meat jack crap. Iraqis are going to still require our help and we should be proud of helping them. Stop continuing to sully our fellow citizens noble acts and the noble acts of the Iraqi people.
These are freaking human beings we are talkig about Think Progress!!!
December 1st, 2005 at 11:12 amWell, it depends on what you mean by "led". Maybe Bush meant that the Iraqi battalions "led" the assault by being used as a human wave in the "lead". Who knows? You know, plausible deniability...
December 1st, 2005 at 11:12 amHe must mean "primarily led" in the same way that Cheney meant it was "pretty much confirmed" that Atta met with Iraqi officials.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:12 amIn 1976. I had Just Joined the Army. April 5 1976.
its good to know what happened in 1976.
Where was Bush? Liar, liar.
The last time Bush’s jury duty surfaced in news media accounts sparked controversy involving several questions on his juror questionnaire that were left blank, including a question about previous arrests.
Bush was governor of Texas at the time and running for president. He managed to get excused from jury service, saying that, as governor, he might be asked to pardon the person on whose case he sat as juror.
It later was revealed that Bush had been arrested for DWI in Maine in 1976, and the Democratic Travis County attorney at the time charged in several media outlets that he thought Bush “used his position as governor†to avoid having to answer potentially embarrassing questions about his past.
There are no such probing questions on the basic McLennan County juror questionnaire.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:13 amSO i guess the genius Lyle is called the embedded journalist who was there a liar. Read what Ware said, moron!
December 1st, 2005 at 11:14 amWas Bush in the National Guard in 76??
December 1st, 2005 at 11:14 amLyle - "leading" implies, to me anyway, that the Iraqi army is developing battle plans, selecting targets, leading the assault with american troops supporting (most likely air power). That's apparently not the case in Tal Afar. While iraqi troops participating is a good thing, it seems pretty clear they aren't leading anything.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:15 amYou know what? The MSM needs to stop attacking our President. It hurts the morale of our troops for the President to be shown to be a bald faced liar. We are at war people. Truth isn't important.
I wish the liberal elite media would report all of the times that "W" hasn't lied to us. Aren't those times just as important? That's why I watch Fox News. They are so fair and balanced that every time "W" is caught in a lie they remind us that somewhere in time a Democrat has lied too. Both lies cancel each other out people, so what's the big deal?
*tongue firmly in cheek*
December 1st, 2005 at 11:16 amWhat he said wasn’t a lie. It is assumed that U.S. special forces will be embedded themselves in Iraqi units for a while. What the President was that it was an Iraqi unit action, not an American unit action and not an action led by the American military. This WAS an Iraqi orchestrated event, with just American soldiers helping the Iraqi force.
What the hell is wrong with this anyway Think Progress? Why do you want us and the Iraqis to lose and suck in Iraq? Do you think things will go better if a Hillary Clinton or Howard Dean junta are in power in D.C.? Regime change in Washington Think Progress doesn’t meat jack crap. Iraqis are going to still require our help and we should be proud of helping them. Stop continuing to sully our fellow citizens noble acts and the noble acts of the Iraqi people.
These are freaking human beings we are talkig about Think Progress!!!
Comment by Lyle
Bravo. Well said. Right on target.....but a waste of time. These are traitors here. Walking Dead Losers. They know exactly what they are doing and saying. Make no mistake about it.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:17 amTime magazine is not a reliable source.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:18 amGeirgie or Ware? Hmmm.
I believe Ware. I think he's been embedded since the start of the war. He's a passionate reporter and is not afraid to report the truth.
Georgie's been a liar since the day I first heard of him. He lies when it's easy enough to check on it, and he's not smart enough to try and keep track of his lies. His only passion is power.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:18 amWhat will we tell the children?
December 1st, 2005 at 11:20 amThis is one of the most blatent lies bush has made and he has been caught out, what else will it take, but unfortunately the word "lie" did not appear in this transcript (no q-time at work)
December 1st, 2005 at 11:21 amso though it is not a "mis-comuniction" or "not revealing all of the facts" or "not being entirely true" and in fact a bold face lie he said during a pr speech that did not meet the goals it set out to communicate (strategy for victory, goals for success in iraq) we still need to start seeing that word being (correctly) used in the MSM media, by liberal pundints & politicians, what other new terms can they come up with until a pile of $hit is called by it's name
You know what? The MSM needs to stop attacking our President. It hurts the morale of our troops for the President to be shown to be a bald faced liar. We are at war people. Truth isn’t important.
I wish the liberal elite media would report all of the times that “W†hasn’t lied to us. Aren’t those times just as important? That’s why I watch Fox News. They are so fair and balanced that every time “W†is caught in a lie they remind us that somewhere in time a Democrat has lied too. Both lies cancel each other out people, so what’s the big deal?
*tongue firmly in cheek*
Comment by Str8UpNoChaser
Anyone who can call the President a liar over this issue has his *head firmly up his ass*.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:22 amall you rightwing nutheads. where were you in 76?
In 1976. I had Just Joined the Army. April 5 1976.
its good to know what happened in 1976.
Where was Bush? Liar, liar.
The last time Bush’s jury duty surfaced in news media accounts sparked controversy involving several questions on his juror questionnaire that were left blank, including a question about previous arrests.
Bush was governor of Texas at the time and running for president. He managed to get excused from jury service, saying that, as governor, he might be asked to pardon the person on whose case he sat as juror.
It later was revealed that Bush had been arrested for DWI in Maine in 1976, and the Democratic Travis County attorney at the time charged in several media outlets that he thought Bush “used his position as governor†to avoid having to answer potentially embarrassing questions about his past.
There are no such probing questions on the basic McLennan County juror questionnaire.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:23 am#13, your wrong.... The war was declared officially over many many months ago. Unless we have started a new war that I am not aware of?
We are battling insurgents, but it is not DECLARED a war. Maybe you should get your facts right before you attach people.
Same goes for #14, and #15
December 1st, 2005 at 11:25 amKeep lying and spinning pathetic repukes... your judgement day is fast approaching.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:26 amWhat he said wasn’t a lie. It is assumed that U.S. special forces will be embedded themselves in Iraqi units for a while. What the President was that it was an Iraqi unit action, not an American unit action and not an action led by the American military. This WAS an Iraqi orchestrated event, with just American soldiers helping the Iraqi force.
Comment by Lyle — December 1, 2005 @ 11:12 am
Rewriting things aren't we Lyle? Did you even read what the embedded reporter said? It's amazing to me that you rely more on your ability to read Dumbya's mind (since you claim to know what he really meant) than the eyewitness account of a reporter who was right there for the whole battle. Genius way of ignoring the truth.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:26 amMorgan,
I think the Iraqis did select the targets and that is what Bush meant. A couple of Green Berets may have 'led' them, but some Iraqi military or government official orchestrated the attack.
This is something that did not happen last year or the year before. Seems like progress to me.
Lets be proud of our Green Berets and the Iraqis for their actions. It's crap that people would degrade their actions for cheap attacks at the President. I know Think Progress goes looking for ways to belittle the President and belittle our efforts and the Iraqi peoples' efforts in Iraq.
These people are trying to save lives and to build a federal Iraq, one without a jackbooted thug as its leader. This a progressive and wonderful thing we and the Iraqis are trying to do. Do no sully it anymore Think Progress. You freaking sit up in you New York City apartments, where you don't live your lives, and you tell other people they suck and that their lives are worthless, because all that matters is making Bush look bad.
Shame, shame, shame... and freaking degrading.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:26 amBUSH IS A LIAR,LIAR!
Posted by Dahr_Jamail at 03:35 PM
September 15, 2005
December 1st, 2005 at 11:27 amMeanwhile, in Iraq...
For the last several days at least 6,000 US soldiers along with approximately 4,000 Iraqi soldiers (Read-members of the Kurdish Peshmerga and Shia Badr Army) were laying siege to the city of Tal-Afar, near Mosul in northern Iraq. It is estimated that 90% of the residents have left their homes because of the violence and destruction of the siege, as well as to avoid home raids and snipers.
#19, have you searved in the military? I have, and to lead means to be directing and in charge.
According to the Embedded Journalist, the Iraqis were following. There is a huge difference in participating and leading.
Maybe you should pull out a dictionary and learn what the definitions of these words, which appears to be to big for you to understand, and see just what "lead" really means.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:28 amTime magazine is not a reliable source.
Comment by wwallace — December 1, 2005 @ 11:18 am
That's just how neocons want you to think, but you'll be ignorant about a lot of goings on if you solely rely on partisan news reporting. The truth is the truth no matter who tells it. In order to keep their followers from having access to the truh, neocons have demonized all media outlets that have the audacity to actually question and challenge them instead of blindly believing their every word. It works for them because most of their followers refuse to believe something unless it comes out of a neocons mouth. Ignorance must be bliss.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:32 amLyle,
December 1st, 2005 at 11:33 amyou suck and your life is worthless.
-The residents of NYC
So the Iraqis "led" the attack the same way that the missile defense tests are "finding" their target. Great. Meanwhile, in the real world...
December 1st, 2005 at 11:34 amThis is for you Lyle. Readup before commenting.
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000278.php
December 1st, 2005 at 11:35 amLyle & I-Right_I: Why are you lemmings even here? If you believe "lefties" to be traitors, wouldn't you believe consorting with traitors, itself, to be a traitorous act?
Just go back to the limbaugh worship boards and let the fine people here discuss their opinions in peace. Grow up, trolling is for idiots, retards and immature brats.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:36 amThis isn't an attack on the troops. The first step to success in Iraq is acknowledging the reality on the ground. Yesterday Bush said the Iraqis were in the lead in Tel-Afar.
It turns out that's not true. Even Sen. Warner accepted Michael Ware's report.
The best way we can honor our troops is to be honest with them. Speaking at the Naval Academy yesterday, Bush fell short.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:38 am#27 Actually it's because of being caught repeatedly skewing the facts. Just like MoveOn.org yesterday. First they picture British troops while saying their Americans. Then they photoshop the picture to cover their mistake. Once caught at altering the photo they remove it from their site. You just keep getting caught trying to deceive and that is why so many do not trust those media outlets who have a history of distorting the truth to fulfil their own agenda.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:39 amAnyone who can call the President a liar over this issue has his *head firmly up his ass*.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 1, 2005 @ 11:22 am
I would expect a respose like this from you. I guess Michael Ware's head is fimly up his ass. But apparently he can still see the action going on around him well enough to call Dumbya on his blatant attempt at hoodwinking the American people once again.
It's obvious that you won't believe anything unless it comes straight from Dumbya's mouth. I won't say your head is up your ass, but since it seems to be totally devoid of any semblance of intelligence it really doesn't matter.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:39 am#21
Please note the line *tongue firmly in cheek*
December 1st, 2005 at 11:40 amPoor Warner keeps trying...Anyone notice how short he was with Matthews yesterday? WEE!
December 1st, 2005 at 11:40 amI would like to commend Think Progress for finally using the words "Bush Lied"
December 1st, 2005 at 11:40 amDon't know why it's news worthy exposing that Bush@co lied...now if it was proven they told the truth on something..now that would be news worthy
December 1st, 2005 at 11:41 amFunny how a site with the name 'Think Progress' just can't stand it when progress is made in Iraq.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:41 amI believe the sky is green, the grass purple, and the sun is black because my brave leaders told me so. Having something to believe in makes me happy !
December 1st, 2005 at 11:41 am"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths," Barbara Bush said on ABC's "Good Morning America" on March 18, 2003. "Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
those are haunting words these days. 'compassionate conservatives' have a knack at shoving their feet into their mealy-mouthed pieholes.
If I were a, ahem, 'republican,' I'd start listening and stop talking.
intelligence is stupidity
December 1st, 2005 at 11:41 amCan anyone remember, when the Green Berets were 'leading' South Vietnamese units into battle in the 60s? I watched that John Wayne film and I couldn't tell what was going on or why Mr Sulu was in it.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:42 am"Why do you want us and the Iraqis to lose and suck in Iraq?"
I don't know that that's the case. I just don't care for freebies going to Muslims.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:43 amGood on Michael Ware! We need more reporters who will step and call this crap for what it really is: Lies.
Let me repeat that and more plainly:
George Bush is a liar.
Didn't hear it the first time?
George Bush is a LIAR!
LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!
You can quote me.
Last Dem In Norman
December 1st, 2005 at 11:44 amJust a little mix-up. A Misunderstanding. Maybe a mistake. No big deal. We all make em, right?
-
December 1st, 2005 at 11:46 amI think this all depends on what the proper definition of 'is' is. Err, what the proper definition of 'led' is.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:48 am#33
Riddle me this then Ben. How many more times does this administration need to be caught lying before you begin to question their collective credibility? Why do they get a pass, but the MSM does not? I await your response.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:49 amJudd, where are the other newsworthy comments from Mr Ware about the levels of trust that US forces have in the Iraqis. And also in the risks and barriers the Iraqis have to getting training. Can you find the rest of the transcript?
December 1st, 2005 at 11:50 amWhy does Think Progress want us to fail in Iraq? #14 You are so correct. Liberals will be on the wrong side of history again with their stance on this war.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:55 am#44 -- LastDem, being a liar as a President became part of the job description during the Clinton era.
Speaking of Clinton, let's look at how he justified the Kosovo initiative. The Orange County Register, in a Nov. 22, 1999, editorial, said, "Months after the bombing has ceased, United Nations and European Union investigations have bolstered what critics had argued: NATO's estimates of Serbian genocide against the Kosovars were greatly overblown. Many observers now think the inflated numbers simply were part of the U.S.-led propaganda effort to build support for the war.
" . . . The latest evidence suggests that fewer than 3,000 Kosovars were murdered -- horrifying, yes, but not many more than the number of Serbs who were killed by NATO bombing attacks on Yugoslavia, roughly estimated between 3,000 and 5,000 soldiers and civilians."
Does this mean that Clinton "lied, people died"?
December 1st, 2005 at 11:55 amhttp://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000276.php#more
December 1st, 2005 at 11:56 amAgain like Fallujah, most of the families who fled are staying in refugee camps outside the city in tents amidst horrible conditions in the inferno-like heat of the Iraqi summer.
The LA Times reported that Ezzedin Dowla, a Turkmen leader in the area said, “Families are homeless and the government has not provided any shelter, food or drink for them.†Nor has the US military.
The targets of this military operation are the Sunni Turkmen who are politically on the side of the Sunni Arabs. Most Sunnis will be voting against the constitution during the coming vote of October, 15th.
The Cheney Administration is desperate for something it can spin as “good news†from Iraq; thus, it most certainly behooves them to have the referendum on the constitution to boast about. But in order to do so, the voting ability and power of the Sunni (and Sunni Turkmen) must be severely compromised, as well as punishment meted out for rightfully assuming what will be a Sunni no-vote on the constitution.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:57 am#50
#44 — LastDem, being a liar as a President became part of the job description during the Clinton era.
So your acknowledging that this president lied. This is a step in the right direction. Proud of you.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:59 amFamilies are homeless and the government has not provided any shelter, food or drink for them.â€
December 1st, 2005 at 11:59 am
Regarding this Liberals-are-traitors claim: my own humble two cents is:
No one can be called a traitor for expressing an opinion, no matter how stupid or ill-informed.
For example, if Cheney:
sincerely believed that Saddam had vast stockpiles of WMDs despite the inspectors' contradictions,
if he thought the aluminum tubes were specific evidence of an active Iraqi nook-yuh-lur program, rather than a bit of old and previously discredited information as was proven by investigation,
if he truly believed we would be greeted as liberators by the Iraqis despite a chorus of expert opinions to the contrary;
then he would not technically be lying and not technically indictable and therefore not treasonous; just a stupid man stretching the truth in accordance with his stupid sincere beliefs.
So, my right wing friends (and I mean that unironically since we're all part of the large mosaic of American opinion and civic life, and therefore brothers/sisters in a grand tradition of freedom), why do YOU insist on calling liberals traitors? Show the evidence before you make a spurious claim. It seems that you define a traitor as an individual who does not share your point of view.
My 7-year-old daughter likes Hilary Duff. I don't. What, does that make one of us a traitor?
Your name-calling only diminishes your dignity and increases doubts about your judgment. It accomplishes nothing.
Please note that I have called no one any names here, or in any of my previous posts.
Love to all.
"Say a prayer for the common foot soldier." (Name the reference and win a prize!)
December 1st, 2005 at 12:01 pm#50
This is the same rationale that Fox uses nightly
"Well, we may have lied... but look who else lied too!"
December 1st, 2005 at 12:01 pmThe postings of I-Right and Lyle should remind us how attached the neo cons are to their talking points, regardless of actual facts available to them. What's interesting news to me is that Senator Warner is able to look fairly objectively at facts and process them in a way that's not blindly partisan. In the past, that would just be Senatorial behavior, nowadays, it's almost heroic to stand up and not spout party propaganda.
If more Republicans did some actual thinking, (I mean, of course, Republicans who aren't being indicted,) we could find a bipartisan way to end this fvcking war and restore the people's faith in government. Good for you, Senator Warner.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:02 pmI thought we were talking about Bush, not Clinton. Anyway, it is pretty clear the the Preznit was mislead by the same faulty intelligence that the rest of us had. How could he know that American forces were really taking the lead? He is more in the dark than we are.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:04 pmThe Republicans: They impeach lying Presidents, don't they?
December 1st, 2005 at 12:04 pmBob Schieffer on Imus this morning quoted a CBS reporter who said the Iraqis were not protecting the road from airport to Baghad, Americans are.
September 30th the generals told Senate Armed Services Committee there was ONE Iraqi batallion trained.
Yesterday they claim 210,000 Iraqis troops trained.
Am I missing something here, or is Bush & Company still lying?
December 1st, 2005 at 12:06 pmFamilies are homeless and the government has not provided any shelter, food or drink for them.†Nor has the US military.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:06 pmWare also had choice words for Lieberman.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:07 pmcynicon implant
December 1st, 2005 at 12:08 pmKeeping in mind that lying is a 'sin'...are you employed or do you receive anything from the Bush administration for spouting their talking points? How is it that you don't have anything to say other than the same old BS?
The reason I suspect that you will answer affirmatively to the above question is that their are very few 'actual' people out there that are as ignorant and uniformed as you appear to be.
I think perhaps the Iraqis "led" the action in the same sense that Chef's all-black unit "led" the US forces against Canada in "Operation Get Behind the Darkies."
Dubya is obviously a "South Park Republican."
December 1st, 2005 at 12:09 pmhttp://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000278.php
December 1st, 2005 at 12:09 pmDamn them evildoer embedded journalists, foiled again! They are gettin' in the way of freedom! Can anyone arrange a speedy drive through at a U.S. checkpoint for Mr. Ware?
December 1st, 2005 at 12:09 pm#47 So in other words you are acknowledging that the MSM engages in dishonesty on a regular basis? This is a step in the right direction. Proud of you.
I fail to see how Bush's claim that the Iraquis "lead" is such a distortion. 11 battalions vs 5? That sounds like a very good progress to me. But it reveals how painful it is for those who want so badly for us to fail. The willingness to latch on to a technicality of description to call it a lie. The people he was speaking to are not so dumb as not to know that the Iraqis are being provided guidance by our military. But again, your need to call it a lie and make that the key component of the speech shows your hypocrisy.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:13 pmSeptember 15, 2005
December 1st, 2005 at 12:13 pmMeanwhile, in Iraq...
For the last several days at least 6,000 US soldiers along with approximately 4,000 Iraqi soldiers (Read-members of the Kurdish Peshmerga and Shia Badr Army) were laying siege to the city of Tal-Afar, near Mosul in northern Iraq. It is estimated that 90% of the residents have left their homes because of the violence and destruction of the siege, as well as to avoid home raids and snipers.
there are still people left that believe even one word out of that monkey-faced son-of-a-bush`s mouth...? i have some lakefront property in the desert i would like to sell you...
December 1st, 2005 at 12:14 pmIn response to Lyle,
You said, "I think the Iraqis did select the targets and that is what Bush meant. A couple of Green Berets may have ‘led’ them, but some Iraqi military or government official orchestrated the attack."
"I think." That is how your response starts. By that very fact, it is fallacious.
Only a reasonable person would consider a recollection by someone who was there as true.
I do not know why you defend the President. He plays to the mob. Americans love to hear words such as "freedom" and as of late, "evil-doers." Both of which play on the hearts of Americans so that they take pride in their country and stand behind the President.
Furthermore, I do not know why you are so afraid of criticism, as if it were evil. Your ignorance to seeing anything wrong with the President's actions or words makes you quite foolish.
Without informing of faults, we can progress little. By ignoring them, YOU are helping the enemy.
I think that in the end we will have succeeded in creating a very large group of people who hate America (i.e. the insurgency that probably had little malevolence earlier, but now has fully immersed itself in it by the Bush's nefarious plans).
Think for yourself. This country has its qualities, as does any country, but it is not perfect. Do not pretend that our leaders are, either.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:14 pm6,000 US soldiers along with approximately 4,000 Iraqi soldiers
December 1st, 2005 at 12:15 pmI'm a liberal, and I do NOT want America to "lose" in Iraq. The war was a bad idea to begin with, it was NEVER a "nobel cause", and George W. Bush lied his head off to justify going to a war that he wanted well before 9/11.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:15 pmWe are there now, and we have to make sure that we get a best result from what we are doing. Victory, no matter how you slice it, means our soldiers get to come home. A permanent presence in Iraq can never, ever be considered a success.
Finally, by starting this ill-conceived war, by lying about his motivations, and by mismanaging the war from day one, George W. Bush has forfeited his right to be in charge of this war. Whether he gets impeached or not, he can no longer be allowed to make further decisions regarding our military in Iraq. The recent senate resolution requiring him to report to congress is a step in the direction of taking the war out of Bush's incompetent hands getting some adult supervision over this horrible debacle.
We can still "win" in Iraq by carefully managing what is done, and how we leave. But leave we must.
Yo, Freedom,
We GOT it, already!
Stop beating your ONE post into the ground!
I swear, sometimes you are just as bad as the trolls.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:16 pm#69
December 1st, 2005 at 12:17 pmAnd our troops who were in that operation are not so dumb to not realize that Bush's misleading description show how desperate he really is. Talk about hurting the morale of the troops. They know the deal and they know Bush is not being truthful.
Just go back to the limbaugh worship boards and let the fine people here discuss their opinions in peace. Grow up, trolling is for idiots, retards and immature brats.
Comment by Who
They come here to study intelligent discourse,in hopes that they may replicate it in the future.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:17 pmsick of re-posts!
December 1st, 2005 at 12:19 pmWe GOT it,
But do they got it?
answer is no, They do not Get it!
If they got it, They would NOt be Supporting this Immoral war. Right?
Feel Free to correct me if I am Wrong.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:21 pm#76 You have no idea about the troops. I know people serving and I read from various sources that tell a much different story. All you are doing is following the talking points of the antiwar crowd. Just make false statements and make them often is the their strategy. Most of the troops know the mission, know the truth, and do not like the way that it is being distorted by the MSM.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:22 pmYou ARE!
December 1st, 2005 at 12:23 pmFine, they don't get it. You think saying the same thing 50x over is going to do it?
NO!!!
It just pisses the rest of us off.
Think of something ELSE to add to the discussion, or kindly keep your fingers OFF the keyboard.
Updated: 7:43 a.m. ET Dec. 1, 2005
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Insurgents attacked several U.S. bases and government offices with mortars and rockets Thursday before dispersing in the capital of western Iraq’s Anbar province, residents said.
News of the attack came as Iraq’s interior minister dismissed the senior inspector in charge of human rights on Thursday in connection with a scandal involving the torture of dozens of prisoners at a Baghdad prison, an official close to the minister said.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:25 pmThank You, #81
December 1st, 2005 at 12:25 pmWhy is this hard ... Bush is comparing this battle (Tal Afar) with last years Fallujah. Fallujah = 9 battalions of US to 6 battalions of Iraqis, a pluarality of US forces. Tal Afar = 11 battalions of Iraqis to 5 battalions of US troops. The majority of soldiers in this battle were Iraqis ... in that sense, they led.
This entire argument is ridiculous. Just because you think Bush lies, does not mean you must look for said lies in everything he says.
In addition, a battalion has between 300 to 1000 soldiers ... that means this one reporter feels that he can speak correctly on the activities of 4,800 to 16,000 soldiers during an engagement in a town that is at least 3 to 4 square miles in size ... especially if he was "imbedded" (ie. with the grunts, not the commanders)
December 1st, 2005 at 12:26 pmBetter to be Pissed Off rather than Pissed On , as I allways say.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:27 pm#69
I see that you hurdled all over the question about the current administration. How many more times do they have to get caught lying before they lose credibility with you? You asserted that the MSM engages in dishonesty, I never said that. I only used your assertions about the MSM in comparison to the lies told by this administration.
Mr. Bush, in his speech made false claims about the readiness and capabilities of the Iraqi Army in order to gain political footing. Does it not matter that he lied? Does it only matter when a Democrat lies?
Do you really believe that a reporter embedded with our military who sees the day to day horror WANTS them to fail? Do you really believe that Democrats, republicans and independents that are demanding answers and accountability from this administration WANT our military to fail? What I wish Ben, is that you would become diligent in seeking out truth, just as if a Democrat were in the White House right now.
I agree that the audience wasn't dumb. I don't know them to call them that. What I will say is that his audiences are enraptured with him almost to the point of pledging allegiance to Bush rather than the flag. Their emotions about this President are all tied up in their faith. believing in Bush is akin to believing in a higher power. I firmly believe that that is one of the reasons folks on the right refuse to admit that this administration is dishonest. To admit that would cause them to question their faith in Bush and the God that they believe brought him to office.
BTW, that technicality argument is hilarious considering that Clinton was impeached on a technicality. But then again, he's a democrat.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:28 pmliberals don`t want america to fail...bush has already taken care of that...liberals want bush and co. to pay for their mistakes...and indeed they will...and that`s no lie...
December 1st, 2005 at 12:29 pm#84, where in the world are you getting your numbers from??
Tal Afar = 11 battalions of Iraqis to 5 battalions of US troops. The majority of soldiers in this battle were Iraqis … in that sense, they led.
September 15, 2005
Meanwhile, in Iraq…
For the last several days at least
December 1st, 2005 at 12:30 pm
Ben=Ben Ginsberg, no doubt.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:30 pm- They say you’re a sack of crap you nazi scum!
- Comment by Ryan Neat
Eloquent and insightful as always, Ryan. There are soldiers in support of the war, and there are soldiers against it ... trying to prove which side is right by claiming that the "soldiers" agree with them makes zero sense.
- Go to operationtruth.org - it’s run by REAL american soldiers
- Comment by Ryan Neat
Real soldiers = the ones that agree with Ryan I guess.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:31 pm#89 - Scroll to the top
Or do we think Bush is lying about the number of battalions ...
December 1st, 2005 at 12:34 pmOh boy, Jocko-Homo is here again to learn from our different perspectives. NOT.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:35 pmHee. That really stirred up the trolls.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:40 pmLyle, Wake up and die right. You are grasping at straws. Bush lies, get it? And you, pathetic turd that you are, excuse him. Go bury your head up Robert Novak's behind!
December 1st, 2005 at 12:40 pm#96,
THAT is a scary image.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:41 pmOops. They've done it, now.... gone and pissed Ryan off!
How stupid can they be?
I, meanwhile, sit at my screen seeing David Banner (aka Ryan Neat) get pushed one too many times and turn into "The Hulk"!
What's so funny is that they have the NERVE to get upset when he finally DOES go off on them!!!!
Like they don't know what's gonna happen....?
Too Funny.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:44 pmto all who support this administration:
December 1st, 2005 at 12:45 pmbush could have been talking about eating a pretzel, regardless he still lied...this is not a treasonous post, but lying to the people regarding actual accounts in iraq to better your position is treasonous and a lie, you lying little lier of a president
"Time magazine is not a reliable source." - wwallace
Well, perhaps you would like to point to a single totally factual source with no-spin that covers everything...
I don't believe it exists.
As a result I use as many sources as I can and look for corroboration. Perhaps you should try the same. The BBC has some interesting reporting with a completely different bias.
Z.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:47 pmT- The point is that soldiers in the field disagree with you and your fascist friends - your inability to recognize, or give credence to that is expected by someone of your limited and diminished capacity though. Partisan hacks always respond in a lopsided fashion.
- Comment by Ryan
Slow down and read, Ryan. What I said was that soldiers both agree and disagree with the Iraq invasion. Your above statement is retarded ... "the soldiers in the field disagree with me" - sure, some do, and there are plenty who disagree with you. It's a stupid argument ... why keep repeating it.
- And thanks for proving my point that you are a hypocrite by so obviously and passive aggressively attacking me and those soldiers.
- - Comment by Ryan
What are you talking about? I haven't attacked you (and certainly not the soldiers) ... stating what you say is ridiculous and ill-informed is no attack. As opposed to saying "You’re a transparent and irrelevant fool as always".
December 1st, 2005 at 12:47 pmGrow up ...
Yeah, but Clinton lied about having sex. So nyeah.
Good thing we spent so many millions of taxpayer dollars to uncover every last detail of that act. It sure made a helluva lot of difference to national and world affairs, didn't it.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:49 pm#89 - Scroll to the top
Or do we think Bush is lying about the number of battalions …
Who Is "we" in that statement?
I Personnaly Do Believe Bush Lies ALL Of the TIME!
December 1st, 2005 at 12:49 pmNobody died when Clinton lied! Remember, he's the guy that was impeached for just lying about a b.j.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:50 pm#92.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:50 pmWhy do You use the word"WE"?
Who in YOUR Opinion is the "WE"?
It Certainly is not "ME"!
Hee. Like hitting a paper wasp nest
December 1st, 2005 at 12:51 pmwith a stick or throwing a stink bomb under the
troll bridge.
These desperate troll pets of ours are just laughable. I can't even reply to their posts. They are somewhere between sinister and ignorant. They live in a different world and choose to see things as they wish. They only listen to what they want to hear.
Republicans are on the way down the path they have created for themselves. Do unto others, live by the sword, etc. Karma wins every single time and they are getting back just what they give. It's a nice balance we have going here and I'm kind of (in a really ugly way which I acknowlege is wrong) enjoying their posts. The more they post, the stronger the stench on their party.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:52 pm#96,
Jay, what is your problem? Take you ignorant and uneducated thoughts to some other site. If you want to disagree with me, disagree with me, but don't just attack me personally. Say something intelligent for change. Pretend for the sake of argument that you are educated.
Personal attacks are very common here at Think Progress, especially against people who support the War in Iraq, but is expected from a group of people who just want to believe the cliches they were conditioned to believe by so-called thoughtful intelletuals and others.
Iraqi soldiers are dying to protect their citizens and are dying to make Iraq a better place. Let us respect that and not use their noble failing to trash a noble effort.
We are talking about human beings who do not want to live under the control of a jackbooted thug. That's progress Think Progress. Living in a world with Saddam Hussein is liberal and progressive. It is a beautiful thing that the communist party is back in IRaq yelling crap at the U.S. and anybody else it disagrees with. Under Saddam they were dead and exiled.
I thank Bush everyday for the progres in Iraq, and Think Progress should too.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:52 pmPresident Bush did us a great service in his Plan for Victory speech. He has offered us a clear roadmap out of the quagmire of his administration. The phrase "as long as I am Commande in Chief" is the key. We must impeach Buch and Cheney at once for the lies which got us into this mess. Once the religious fanatics and neocon chickenhawks are safely imprisoned, we can begin to rebuild our international reputation and bring rational sanity to bear in terms of foreign policy, scientific research and environmental policy.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:52 pmNobody cares, trolls. You are the party crashers.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:54 pmTrue Blue... It would be nice if one of them would actually stand up for what they say... I'm still waiting for IRI to try and prove that he is older, wiser and more intelligent than me. As he claimed...
I'm willing to accept his challenge, but he now refuses like the yellow-bellied coward that he is.
Z.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:54 pm- Oops. They’ve done it, now…. gone and pissed Ryan off!
How stupid can they be? I, meanwhile, sit at my screen seeing David Banner (aka Ryan Neat) get pushed one too many times and turn into “The Hulkâ€!
A perfectly apt description ... the Hulk had no anger management skills and neither does Ryan. I continue to wonder why Ryan even gets mad ... if he's so on the side of truth, then what I say shouldn't disturb him in the least. Unfortunately, when he does start spouting off, his arguments devolve considerably ...
December 1st, 2005 at 12:56 pmWhen will the neo-conservatives admit that the Chimp's game of toy soldiers is purely and solely the first chess move on the Project for the New American Century's chess board?
This extremely flawed plan is already collapsing in the 1st inning- the American public is waking up, the GOP lies and talking points are falling flat, and the overuse and abuse of our military personnel will be their ultimate undoing.
The most worn out, cop-out excuse I'm tired of hearing is the old standard: "We're spreading freedom, and liberating the Iraqis from a brutal dictator". Jesus. You neo-cons don't give damn about Iraqi's. Wasn't that revision number 2 or 3 of why we went in there? Wasn't the original design the WMD's? The neo-cons talk about "re-writing history", hell, Bush has been re-writing history from the day we declared there was no WMD.
And quit bringing up Clinton. He hasn't been in office for 5 years now- take responsibility for your failures. I know taking accountability is not your strong suit, but today would be a good day to start.
Hypocritical bastards.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:57 pmHi Z,
December 1st, 2005 at 12:57 pmYeah, he always runs and hides, or simply changes names, rather than answer your questions.
Dopes, all of them.
Justin,
I wrote I think, because the Iraqi government is ordering Iraqi and American soldiers into battle. That doesn't mean that you're right to say that Iraqis didn't do that in this case. You don't know that either... do you?
Furthermore, Bush is not perfect. He has made mistakes. I think him to be ignorant of a lot of things to say the least. Mistakes are human though and even with a Democrat in office he or she would make mistakes and look stupid at times. I was specifically refering to what this thread is about, unlike you who doesn't understand that. Bush is right to say that Iraqis 'led' the fight. A couple of Green Berets assissting the Iraqis doesn't constitute the Iraqis not "leading". We all know that our soldiers embedded with theirs to help them. What is important is that in this battle it was IRaqis who did the fighting, not an American unit. That was Bush's point and lets not take it out of context, just because Think Progress hates Bush.
Don't ever accuse me again of not thinking Bush is incapable of wrongs or faults or mistakes. Got it?
Understand what people are saying or keep your mouth shut.
December 1st, 2005 at 12:59 pmIf Saddam was such a b@st@rd, why did we cozy up to him back during the reign of Reagan? Why did The Don supply him with all that nasty sh!t to use on "his" people?
And why Iraq? Why don't we go overthrow all the horrible despots world-wide? What's so special about Iraq?
Uh-oh, it looks like Israel has WMDs, and they have a history of aggressive & belligerent behavior. Guess we'd better crank up an invasion force...
December 1st, 2005 at 12:59 pmOK, Giac
You don't seem to understand.
The Hulk always went after "the bad guys"
Doh!
December 1st, 2005 at 12:59 pmBush and his henchman,(Rummy, Cheny, Rove), continue to feed the public lies and distortions without blnking and eye. They couldn't care less that these falsified statements they perpetrate on us have been repeatedly shown to be totally false. Bush has become a psychotic, (maybe he always was), and will sacrifice this country 's creditability for his own ego.
I fear this person will continue his "jihad" regardless of the cost or loss of American and lives until 2008.
... think Impeachment ...
December 1st, 2005 at 1:01 pmLyle, you might want to proofread your posts. Particularly if you are going to throw slurs at other people's level of education.
Errors are easy to make while typing but equally easy to check for.
Most personal attacks are started by republican trolls. Some of the liberals on here reply in a similar manner. You threw in a bunch of personal attacks in your posting while complaining about personal attacks.
Z.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:01 pmLyle,
We are talking about bush lying to the american people..scroll to the top...not the justification for war!
December 1st, 2005 at 1:01 pmThese desperate troll pets of ours are just laughable. I can’t even reply to their posts. They are somewhere between sinister and ignorant. They live in a different world and choose to see things as they wish. They only listen to what they want to hear.
Republicans are on the way down the path they have created for themselves. Do unto others, live by the sword, etc. Karma wins every single time and they are getting back just what they give. It’s a nice balance we have going here and I’m kind of (in a really ugly way which I acknowlege is wrong) enjoying their posts. The more they post, the stronger the stench on their party.
Comment by progressive and proud
I could have said it better of course but just change the subject to the Democratic Party and the Filthy Left that have stolen it and I'd say that's spot on.
Your problem PP is going to come up in 06 and 08 when all this talk of the downfall of Republicanism is going to be hard to reconcile with the loss of additional Democratic seats in congress.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:02 pmThey live in a different world and choose to see things as they wish. They only listen to what they want to hear.
- Comment by progressive and proud
Anyone with a modicum of honesty would admit that this phenomenon occurs on both sides of the political aisle.
Republicans are on the way down the path they have created for themselves.
- Comment by progressive and proud
Do you not find it interesting that Hillary Clinton is still making quite hawkish statements ... why do you suppose that is? Her handlers are smart, that's why. The US is a fickle bunch of voters. They may not be happy with Bush right now, but, in most cases, that has not translated to increased traction for the democratic party. Hillary is staying in the CENTER or else she'll never win in 3 years. Don't confuse a lack of confidence in one party with a transfer of that confidence to the other ...
December 1st, 2005 at 1:04 pmDon't look now Ryan, a comic book reference to insult you. I see where the trolls get all of their logic and intelligence gathering.
And trolls, you look like the idiot at the party having had too much to drink and now has a lampshade on your head. You are merely marginal to us so you can keep wasting your time, but remember, that is all you are doing. Too bad you choose to spend time arguing instead of trying to help the troops you claim to admire.
We just had a veteran's stand down for homeless vets here. I think you should spend some time doing that. I'm sure there are some meaningful things just like that in your neck of the woods. Arguing with us is futile and rather mean. It seems counterproductive.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:06 pmPolitics is courtship behavior; people choose their strategy at the time when mating urges are most urgent. So what can we conclude about these Bush deadenders? (1) beta males who need an ass to kiss. inclined to court in packs, like frat men. relatively dominant males may value them as the inferior alternative in bars etc., when 'picking up women by contrast' (2) comfortable with failure and fantasy compensation. e.g. tobacco-induced primary impotence (which really doesn't matter because sex is not available), coupled with 'good-provider' posturing in social settings. This is not politics, this is evolution. Maladaptive patterns are being outcompeted, and here is where they go to die.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:08 pmTrue Blue… It would be nice if one of them would actually stand up for what they say… I’m still waiting for IRI to try and prove that he is older, wiser and more intelligent than me. As he claimed…
I’m willing to accept his challenge, but he now refuses like the yellow-bellied coward that he is.
Z.
Comment by Zwack
If we could find an unbiased arbiter you would have the answer to your question from a third party. But as it is you're just going to have to take my word for it. You are a dumbass.
I have no idea if you're older than me or not I just assume the kind of nonsense you spout is that of a game-boy playing teenager and not the kind of kid I was allowed to associate with.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:08 pm[...] Watch more Stories [...]
December 1st, 2005 at 1:10 pm#87 This will not be the first time I have made the statement I am about to make. But in case you have not heard me say it I will say it again and briefly as possible.
I believe that after 9/11 there was a fear that we would get hit again. That it might even be more severe. The US had limited options to prevent such an act. We could increase protection at home and try to improve intelligence abroad or we could go after those responsible. Everyone wants to jump on the Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I believe the US government believed this was much more than any one country. That these extremists were well organized and well financed. I think that the US government came to this administration and put forth the strategy that would require US forces in the region. The problem was where do you put them and who will they fight. We simply could not just pick a country and call the enemy out. We needed an excuse to put them there in order to begin the war against this enemy that had no nation. So Saddam and his non compliance of UN sanctions offered that oppurtunity. That is why there was no reasonable continuance of inspections. The US government thought that the best strategy was war versus a strategy that would allow the extremists to grow and become a larger danger later.
So I am contending that the US government lied to the world about its intentions in order make possible a startegy that they felt was the best choice for national security for the future. That this was the best way to reduce the threat of a much more significant act of terror on US soil. The US will never nor could ever acknowledge this. It simply would not be acceptable. At the same time the US knew that it could not depend on the rest of world to take on terrorism. This holds true today. If we begin to succeed and other nations see this they may be more confident that terrorism can be fought with some effectiveness.
Many on here contend that the terrorists have grown but there are no facts to support that contention. The increase in the acts of violence are not an indicator of growth in terrorists. They may be an indication of their fight for survival though.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:10 pm*calling*
Ben....oh Ben. Yoohoo!. Over Here! Are you refusing to respond to my question Ben? In case you missed it the other 2 times that I poted it, here goes. How many more times must this administration get caught lying before they lose credibility with you? I'm still awaiting a response.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:11 pm"A couple of Green Berets assissting the Iraqis doesn’t constitute the Iraqis not “leadingâ€."
-Lyle
Lyle also thinks Custer "assisted" the cavalry at Little Big Horn.
Don't march in lockstep, Lyle. Bush said the Iraqis "primarily led" and its just not true. Why did he do this? To generate more support for the war. And when you have to resort to these tactics to mitigate your approval ratings in your handling of the war... well, that just really sucks.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:11 pmWe impeached a president for lying about sex , can't we impeach this president for liying about war . We are talking about american lives , tax payers money , 6 billons us dollars a month going down the drain . Why oh why do we want to meddle in other peoples affairs , why oh why "Bring it on " . Why not center on our problems here , at home , and protect ourselves , here at home . Let us look at ralities in the face and not succumbs to false promises :
December 1st, 2005 at 1:13 pmvictories , heros , patrotism , medals .
Real patriotism is to care about ourselves , here at home .
#138 sounds like classic projection. Ryan's mental disorders apparently run deep.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:13 pmTheir illusion of public support that has been propagated through the MSM is over now. The next few months of them trying to deny public opinion and international demands, along with the MSM attempting to prop them up, should be interesting.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:14 pm#115 -- Giacomo, bingo. You nailed it. The reason Ryan and some others lash out is because their arguments don't hold up. The closer you get to revealing that, the more emotional they get. Kind of like a young child. That said there are enough here who will have a rational discussion with you (Spudge, Witch)
December 1st, 2005 at 1:14 pmClinton was impeached for lying in the context of a sexual harassment lawsuit. hardass obviously hates women.
President Bush did not lie about the war to liberate Iraq.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:14 pmYeah Ryan,
The incompetence rap is pretty hard for
December 1st, 2005 at 1:17 pmthe Neos to shake at this point.
Amazing that adults would go to war without
an aftermath plan.
I know they were in a big hurry to start the
war before everyone found out there were
no WMDs, but still, they had no plan at all.
I think kids in a snowball fight show
more follow-up strategy than these guys.
Maybe that's because they refused to listen to
the military who actually have experience and
training coupled with the fact that all these
guys "had better things to do" than serve themselves?
who needs diplomacy when you can just blow $hit up
Setting: mess hall on a nuclear sub, somewhere off the coast of Springfield, USA
Submarine Admiral: Homer, how do you get peace?
Homer Simpson (reaching across the table to a bowl of peas with a butter knife): Peas? With a knife.
Admiral: Right, not with the pen, but the sword!
December 1st, 2005 at 1:18 pm#144
The war to liberate Iraq? Wait I just got out of my coma that I went into in March of 2003. Didn't we invade Iraq as a preemptive action because they posed an imminent threat? Confused.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:18 pmWe will know real progress is being made when Bush, or Condi, or Rumsfeld announce weeks ahead of time that they will be touring Iraq to talk to the Iraqi people face to face in all areas of Iraq. Let me know when that happens please.
The only thing this Shiite only Iraqi army is doing is training to kill Sunnis the day after we leave. Do you really believe they will let by gones be by gones? Where are the Kurds in this? They still have their own militia that we asked to be disarmed. Now we no longer mention it. The moment we leave, the Iraqi government divides up the oil between the Kurds and Shiites and the Sunni get told to stick it. You really think the Kurds care about Iraq? The Kurdish Republic is what you will see and the Shiite Theocracy and the Sunni wasteland. Remember Yugoslavia once Tito died? Let by gones, be bygones? Yea, right. Dream on neocons.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:18 pmI have no problem with anger management, after all, I’m not so fearful of disent that I need to go to republican blogs to attack and/or vent. It takes a real hateful angry bag of crap to do that - oh wait, that’s what YOU’RE doing…
- Comment by Ryan Neat
The Ryan Neat lexicon of arguments.
1) State something about the person with whom you disagree (this does not necessarily need to be true, just state it convincingly, no one will notice).
2) Attack the aforementioned attribute with reckless abandon ... by no means must you ever respond fairly to what the other person has stated (this would only encourage them to continue the dialogue ... remember, the goal is to insult and blame)
3) Include several attacks ad hominem (use words like fool or retard ... Nazi is also effective). If you can't think of a word that you haven't used recently, make up a new word that sounds bad (like balless)
4) With each new post, change the argument so that the other person must constantly rebut a wider array of statements ... by no means should you ever stick to the main topic. This could result in you making a concession of some type.
5) Close your statement with air of superiority. Ignore that you've actually said nothing of note (the point is to trash, not answer). Insulting the other person's intelligence is often effective at this point as well.
Lastly, every six or seven posts, find a substantial quote from another site that supports your argument (just pick one of the 40 that you've leveled) ... this way, you can continue to smugly claim that the "facts" are one your side.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:20 pm"If we could find an unbiased arbiter you would have the answer to your question from a third party. But as it is you’re just going to have to take my word for it. You are a dumbass." - IRI
Well, if you were serious about it you wouldn't resort to ad-hominem attacks but would instead have found a way. I can think of several ways of doing this in a fair manner, but it's not my challenge so you would undoubtedly use that as an excuse for claiming it is unfair.
"I have no idea if you’re older than me or not I just assume the kind of nonsense you spout is that of a game-boy playing teenager and not the kind of kid I was allowed to associate with. "
You are the one who explicitly stated that you were older than I. Now you are backing off of that claim. As for the game-boy playing teenager part... I am not a game-boy playing anything. I have played with a game-boy in the past, but I have never owned a game-boy nor played one for any length of time. I don't remember my parents ever deciding who I could and couldn't associate with. They allowed me to make my own mind up about that sort of thing, but they also gave me a strong ethical and moral upbringing.
So, if I can think of fair ways of doing part of this challenge, and you can't then doesn't that say something about our relative intelligence?
Z.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:21 pmMaybe Bush should give a speech in front of a regular crowd instead of military crowds.
Hmmm, I wonder why he doesn't do that? I'm sure he'd be open to other points of view that may arise at such a speech, right.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:21 pm#135:
Sorry to steal the word "outlandish" from the White House, but what you just described is not only psychotic, but absolutely qualified as a war crime. You mean to tell us that we intentionally used a sovereign nation as a battleground to attract terrorists from all around?
Wow. If that is an excuse for the Bush Crime Syndicate, than you have indicted them even further. So I suppose if Congress was actually told that this was the real plan, they would have voted for it? I think not. If what you say is true, then the White House is responsible for all the blood spilled (if they aren't already) for a twisted policy, while lying to Congress.
And you know the penalty for lying to Congress is, right?
December 1st, 2005 at 1:22 pmDodgeball,
Yes we did support Saddam Hussein in the past. That is not a reason to go after him now. Why? Because you doing is complaining about us befriending decades ago. In fact it is because we helped him then, that we needed to overthrow him now. Because we transgressed against the Iraqi people in supporting him and not overthrowing him in '91. That means that because we worked with him the past, we needed to stop him today.
We also don't overthrow all other despots because we don't have relations with those countries like we have with Iraq. We don't have a conncetion to Mugabe so we aren't obligated to Zimbaweans to do anything about him. We didn't have serious relations with Rwanda, like say Belgium does, to do anything about genocide there. We've never supporte North Korea so we don't necessarily have to take Kim Jung Il out. We didn't put the Mullahs of Iran in charge so we don't owe the Iranians. We haven't spoken to Castro in half-century and don't owe Cuba anything.
Iraq however got screwed by us in the 80's and in '91. We gave Saddam support against Iran and then we didn't help the Kurds and Shiities liberate themselves in '91. That made it our responsibilit to do something about IRaq. And unlike every other despot we weren't holding for over their skies in a no fly zone.
That's why it is okay to invade Iraq and not say North Korea.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:23 pmYou are drawing inferences from my post, although I am not surprised by this. You have concluded that I was implying one thing by saying another. This is not the case and is quite telling of your method of interpretation with respect to the way we converse here. I really don't think you are able to understand us and is probably a reason that you seem to get so irate.
Bush has a low IQ and one could never conclude that he would ever be anything other than a low IQ president. US voters are not as fickle as they are negligent. Their negligence in not doing due diligence on their choices for those that are put in charge of our lives. It is to their peril to shop at Wal-Mart and rent videos when they should be watching the BBC and trying to find out what their vote really means.
Oy Vey!
December 1st, 2005 at 1:26 pm"Don’t ever accuse me again of not thinking Bush is incapable of wrongs or faults or mistakes. Got it?
Understand what people are saying or keep your mouth shut."
Comment by Lyle — December 1, 2005 @ 12:59 pm
That's some pretty weak crap Lyle. I don't see you SPECIFICALLY taking Bush to task for anything. "He's made mistakes" - name them, and tell us why you think they were mistakes.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:26 pm"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"
December 1st, 2005 at 1:26 pmThomas Jefferson
Maybe Bush should give a speech in front of a regular crowd instead of military crowds.
Hmmm, I wonder why he doesn’t do that?I’m sure he’d be open to other points of view that may arise at such a speech, right.
Comment by Bandar Bush — December 1, 2005 @ 1:21 pm
I'm afraid he'd be tarred and feathered on site!
December 1st, 2005 at 1:26 pmEmbedded Reporter: Bush Lied In Speech About Iraqi Forces
In other news, experts conclude that water is wet.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:27 pmBush Lies,
December 1st, 2005 at 1:27 pmPeople die,
and the trolls reply
"Yeah but Clinton's unzipped fly".
In the distant past, their argument relies.
#157, Lyle, Your are A Retarded Learner, Or a Fool Follower, FREEDOM is NOT FREE AND NEVER WILL BE!
December 1st, 2005 at 1:30 pmSO GET THAT MENTALITY OUT OF YOUR FRICKEN HEAD YOU MORON!
#144
Clinton was impeached for lying in the context of a sexual harassment lawsuit. hardass obviously hates women.
Revisionist history again? When did Monica file a sexual harassment lawsuit? Never! She was never harassed. Clinton was impeached because he wouldn't admit to having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. The Republicans had spent millions of taxpayer dollars at that point trying to get the goods and a few blow jobs from monica was all they came up with. That money was so well spent. Bravo.
President Bush did not lie about the war to liberate Iraq.
Comment by wwallace — December 1, 2005 @ 1:14 pm
Okay Wallace, I'll bite. Was it not a lie to say that Iraq was an imminent threat that needed to be dealt with? It must be, because now according to your own words, we're liberators. Which is it?
Was it not a lie to say that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for this entire farce and Americans wouldn't have to foot the bill?
Was it not a lie to say that Iraq was the center of the war on terrorism?
Was it not a lie to claim that Sadaam was responsible for 9/11?
I could go on and on Wallace. I know you think I'm some leftist partisan, but you couldn't be further from the truth. I simply demand accountability from those that represent me be they democrat or republican. We don't live in a dictatorship and it's about time people started realizing that.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:30 pmAnatamoy of a troll post:
1- Regardless of the thread, post opinonated talking points with no factual evidnece, or relevance to original post
2- Reffer to other opinions when questioned and attempt to present a majority opinion
3- When polls reflect minority thought, refute the polls
4- Attack the backbone and patriotism of those posting, even when the subject matter is too such an extent that the only way to counter it is to show a facist view
5- Use broad, outdated terms that have been rebuked (repeatedly) to show support: congress gave bush permission to attack iraq so every one agrees or a majority of us voted for the president so everything he does is right
6- Rely soley one right wing propagandist for "real news"
7- Complain that news presented here is not in MSM so it is just wackos, when MSM reports the same news, discredit MSMS
...feel free to add to the list...
December 1st, 2005 at 1:31 pmABC
Send that to O'Reilly ... maybe he'll send you an autographed copy of his book (he likes poems).
Ryan
I forgot a step
December 1st, 2005 at 1:31 pm7) State emphatically that you debunked/disproved or otherwised conquered the other person's argument (don't reference which point, just say "I won"). Accuse the other person of behaving in the manner you employ.
Touche Chris
December 1st, 2005 at 1:33 pmU.S. paying Iraqi press?
December 1st, 2005 at 1:33 pmNov. 30: NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports on a Los Angeles Times article that says the U.S. military is paying the Iraqi press to publish articles written by U.S. troops.
MSNBC
:)
- Comment by Ryan Neat
Did I get a smile from Ryan? Quite honestly, if I met you in person, I'd probably like you ... I just wouldn't be able to stomach most of what you said.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:36 pm#155 Thanks for responding. I mean this to be serious without being insulting. Now that you have an idea of what I am saying ask yourself how things might have played out under these circumstances.
9/11 happens. President is told that a possible nuclear, biological or chemical threat cannot be ruled out. The US is not prepared from a technological or resource level to protect itself from this very possible event. The US has intelligence that such an attack may be in the planning stages or ready to go. President is advised that the best strategy is to find a way to engage the enemy as soon as possible. The purpose being to obtain intelligence about the terror infrastructure and to disrupt any potential threats and long range to change the region which has become a hiding place for terror operations. President is given a plan via Iraq to begin such an operation.
All I am saying is this is not only a possibility but may actually be somewhat close to the truth. To answer your question regarding Congress being advised the answer is "no way". The plan would have never stayed a secret.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:36 pmNitpicking one of Bush's points to death shows one of two things:
1. An inability (or refusal) to look at the big picture, or
2. The big picture does not favor the left
Or maybe it's because #2 is true that #1 is happening.
Now that Bush is fighting back by informing the public about the progress being made in Iraq, the Dems are going to be painted into a corner.
"The battle lines are being drawn with increasing clarity on Iraq. More and more Democrats will give up on their former posture of denouncing Bush's handling of the war without offering any real alternative of their own, and instead forthrightly enunciate their own favored policy: quitting. There is a kind of honor in this — at least it is the position many of them have always believed in. But it is their shame that it has taken a dip in support for the war in the polls for them finally to be frank about it."
December 1st, 2005 at 1:37 pmMy goodness, what an incompetent, knuckle-dragging shit-kicker he is. It's almost beautiful, in a way.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:38 pmlie about war or sex....hmmm...a little before my time, but the first thing that comes to mind is this saying my parents use to say back when they were swirling around with flowers in their hair:
"Make love not war"
Sex = 2 people (maybe 3 or 4, no more than a dazen usually)
War = Thousads dead, 100's of thousands injured
hmmm, they are equal...are they equal?
December 1st, 2005 at 1:38 pmGee Ben,
I guess I should stay out of this, but it
December 1st, 2005 at 1:40 pmsounds like you are writing a script
for "24".
We already know that pretty much everything
you make up here is not true, so what is the
point of writing a pro-Bush screen play?
Wow Lyle your one of those...what do I mean? One of those that thought Clinton's semantic statement was an impeachable lie...it wasn't...he didn't have sex with Monica, though he played with her sexually.
Yet every one of this immoral illegal administrations's bold faced impeachable criminal lies, you explain and try to justify. Well if you must explain or justify...it's a lie!
By the way, calling bush and cronies liars in NO WAY AFFECTS THE TROOPS MORAL, THEY KNOW HE'S A LIAR.
THEY ARE THERE TO FEED THEIR FAMILIES AND PROTECT THE MAN NEXT TO THEM, THAT'S WHAT SOLDIERS DO, THEY ARE HEROES EVEN WHEN SENT TO FIGHT FOR A LIAR.
BUT WE AS PATRIOTS ARE TO MONITOR WHY THEY'RE SENT THERE AND MUST FIGHT TO GET THEM HOME WHEN IT'S BASED ON LIES! Also TO STOP THIS CRAP FROM CONTINUING TO HAPPEN (over and over throughout history), WE MUST START NOW TO PROSECUTE LEADERS THAT FRAUDULENTLY START WARS (BOTH SIDES HAVE DONE IT, ONLY THIS ASSHOLE WORSE THAN ANY OTHER!).
December 1st, 2005 at 1:41 pmSaddam has been dethroned. Mission accomplished. Their disgusting victory is already won. Get out. Give Iraq to the Iraqis and pray we haven't created an even greater problem by continuing to destroy the lives of innocent men, women and children who have to clean up the mess created by the current administration's lies, dirty unchristian-like torture of the people and the use of chemicals on the human flesh of the Iraqis. This is not war, this is attempted genocide and as a US citizen I am disgusted that they claim to represent my interests. Our war has created a more unstable Middle East and provided yet another breeding ground for hate and terrorists. And who is watching our borders? No one! So those who wish to "destroy our way of life" are free to enter the US while the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal is busy spreading democracy throughout the world.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:41 pmTime magazine reporter Michael Ware gained exclusive access to the Iraqi insurgents, spending months with them for this week's cover story. Ware shared his experiences and observations Monday with CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien.
O'BRIEN: [You spent] three months with the insurgents, how did you gain access and were they initially fearful about talking to you?
WARE: Very much so. It's been a very slow process. A lot of gumshoe journalism, establishing trust with one contact, gaining trust with that person and then going on from one to the next. This large network, this sophisticated unit we have found came to me, asking specifically for me, on a recommendation, I'm thinking, from another resistance group.
Translation: Not at all. They were aware of my past work for Al Quaida and sympathy for Muslim headchoppers and appreciate the favorable light I shine on their murderous activities
O'BRIEN: At the same time, they must have assumed that as a reporter you would then take this story and make it public, or are you now worried about reprisals as the story is the cover story in Time, and you are making the rounds talking about this?
WARE: Well, this was the purpose for which they invited me in. They made this very clear. They said, "We want you to see everything. Come and watch, listen, report everything that you see and hear." They want to tell the world what's going on.
Translation: Well duh, this is what they pay me for, and they pay a lot...hehehehe. I'm their white PR guy here in Iraq. It's my job to make sure that these murderous thugs look like the victims and the patriots fighting for their country that the Imperialists American Republicans have so ruthlessly stolen.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:41 pmThis Administration is just pathetic. When you lose your credibility, you've lost your soul. Sorry, George, your Rapture left without you!
December 1st, 2005 at 1:42 pm#174,
So why are you here exactly?
December 1st, 2005 at 1:42 pmIt is obvious: we must trust the President. He knows best.
We're just citizens.
It's time to shut down all critical web sites, stop asking questions, don't read any newspaper articles that are at all disrepsectful. Any hostile or negative energy we send out is totally unacceptable.
We must do what Americans do best: shop till we drop. That will make our country strong and our President happy.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:42 pmAs soon as the next Iraqi election happens, the Shiites will ask us to leave so they can form their theocracy, take their revenge on the Sunnis and make use of their oil. The Sunni will ask us to leave because they hate us. And the Kurds will want us to leave but won't say so because they do like us. However, the Kurds want us out so they declare what has already happened -- an independent Kurd state. They have a democracy (they had that with the no fly zone, so don't pat this administration on the back for that) and their own Kurdish army. Iraq as we know it will cease to exist. We can only delay this by staying, but it is inevitable. So there is no point in staying after the elections. And to be perfectly honest, I don't give a crap if the Shiites wipe out the Sunnis.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:46 pmWe simply could not just pick a country and call the enemy out. We needed an excuse to put them there in order to begin the war against this enemy that had no nation. So Saddam and his non compliance of UN sanctions offered that oppurtunity.(...) So I am contending that the US government lied to the world about its intentions in order make possible a startegy that they felt was the best choice for national security for the future.
Comment by Ben — December 1, 2005 @ 1:10 pm
Ok, so now we get an honest assessment.
First step in the right direction.
That has been more or less my opinion from the very beginning: Members of the Bush administration had set their sight on Iraq a long time before the 9/11 attacks. The attacks just proved a very timely excuse to attack that country.
Now, tell us: In your opinion, is it ok for any administration to send people to kill and die based on a lie? And now that we know there were no WMDs in Iraq, and no "operational ties" between Hussein's regime and AlQaeda, shouldn't the people responsible for this fiasco face the consequences? Now that we know of the cruelties visited on ordinary Iraqis by American troops, who should be held responsible?
The increase in the acts of violence are not an indicator of growth in terrorists. They may be an indication of their fight for survival though.
Comment by Ben — December 1, 2005 @ 1:10 pm
Er... wrong. The increase in attacks is an indication of an increased number of people involved as well as a larger network of sympathisers. Guerrilla warfare necessarily implies active or passive support from the local population. Read this article for an example:
December 1st, 2005 at 1:46 pmhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17892-2004Dec21.html
CyniCON,
December 1st, 2005 at 1:47 pmOkay, we'll take a view that this administration hasn't yet, and look at the big picture (which to me means global, we don't need to go universal do we?)
This adminsitration has left previous allies in the dust with our we're right, your wrong attitude....regardless of how many holes are being found in our logic, goals, and morals we still "stay the course"
We have sold out not only are country to corp america, but also iraq to foot the bill for this war, which has come up short and cause the tax payer
we lie to us citizens and our own troops to help foster a better picture of what we have accomplished
this can go on and on but I am at work and still want to cover the SMALL PICTURE:
a small group of rich and elite americans decide to take over the oil industry
an over abundence of backwoods logic is used to bring about a new Cowboy for the US hicks to look up to
anyone who counters this small group is quickly attacked and silenced...which leads to the small picture goal of putting the world's oil into the hands of a few and...the big picture is simple...GLOBAL CONTROL OF OIL
#182,
Good question. To try and open some eyes -- and maybe have mine opened at the same time.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:47 pm#173:
I understand what you are trying to say, but as a Constitutionalist, I must stand by the doctrine that the President must not act with sole authority, he must consult Congress with such a plan, whether or not the plan may be exposed. When we deviate from the Constitution, we are not only straying off the paved road, but we are slapping the collective faces of the Founding Fathers, who were very smart people.
What Bush should have done after 9/11 was ask Congress, or, if legal, use an executive order to close our borders until further notice, or until immediate intelligence on the attackers could be obtained. The economic impact of such a move would pale in comparison to the possibility of another lethal attack. Unfortunately, that did not happen, and we will never rid the world of terrorists via Iraq. Worse, we are probably creating even more terrorists that future generations will be forced to deal with.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:49 pmnot surprised...WH&Co professional criminals, EXPERTS Liars and Crooks-lousey at everything else. They keep on lying in plain site and don't give a damn. If the Sheeple won't revolt and storm the WH and the Capitol, big deal, who cares?
December 1st, 2005 at 1:49 pmAnd who is watching our borders? No one! So those who wish to “destroy our way of life†are free to enter the US while the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal is busy spreading democracy throughout the world.
Comment by Meow
Oh shut up. You'll be the first to scream "RACISM" if you see one illegal Mexican put in cuffs.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:49 pmIf the Sheeple won’t revolt and storm the WH and the Capitol, big deal, who cares?
Comment by devin — December 1, 2005 @ 1:49 pm
That seems to be where their at all right.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:51 pmIraq however got screwed by us in the 80’s and in ‘91. We gave Saddam support against Iran and then we didn’t help the Kurds and Shiities liberate themselves in ‘91. That made it our responsibilit to do something about IRaq. And unlike every other despot we weren’t holding for over their skies in a no fly zone.
Sounds noble enough.
So why did Bush lie about Hussein's weapons programs, then?
All we heard before the invasion was "Mushroomcloud911mushroomcloud911". Not a peep about our responsibility to help the Iraqis -- well, not until we found out that there were no WMDs and they had to change the story.
That may be YOUR motivation for supporting the war, but it's certainly not the position of the government you're defending.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:52 pm#
And who is watching our borders? No one! So those who wish to “destroy our way of life†are free to enter the US while the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal is busy spreading democracy throughout the world.
Comment by Meow
Oh shut up. You’ll be the first to scream “RACISM†if you see one illegal Mexican put in cuffs.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 1, 2005 @ 1:49 pm
I think there's a lot more to defending the border than arresting Mexicans. The fact that you equate border security with stopping "illegal Mexicans" says a lot about your point of view.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:55 pmI understand what you are trying to say, but as a Constitutionalist, I must stand by the doctrine that the President must not act with sole authority, he must consult Congress with such a plan, whether or not the plan may be exposed. When we deviate from the Constitution, we are not only straying off the paved road, but we are slapping the collective faces of the Founding Fathers, who were very smart people.
Comment by Independent
The Founding Fathers would hang 3/4 of the Democratic Party after a 3 minute debate. The debate would be about what to do with all the bodies.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:56 pm#188 I completely understand where this is the road to trouble. I do not know what information was being considered for such a decision if such a decision was made. I hear and read rumblings out of Curt Weldon's story concerning Able Danger that may have indicated a severe and impending threat. I just do not believe that the Iraq war started because we all of sudden decided it was time for Saddam to be complient. There was a bigger storyline. I can only hope that any decision like this had some congressional involvement and that the threat was worthy of such a sacrifice.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:57 pmProgressives and Conservatives-
I do not want to call either side right or wrong, but I would like to point out something that seems to have gone unnoticed and misunderstood.
George Bush relies on the people in his Administration for his information and bases his decisions on the facts that have been provided to him. He has openly admitted to Britt Hume (Fox News), that he does not read newspapers, nor does he watch TV news. He relies on the people around him for news and information.
When George Bush makes a speech, either to a live audience in his presence or on TV, President Bush is basing his speech on what he has been told. He BELIEVES what he has been told and speaks from his heart based on the misinformation he has been provided. THIS IS NOT LYING. HE IS NOT A LIAR.
Misinformed.....Ignorant....Call it what you want, but PLEASE do not call him a liar. He believes what he says because the people surrounding him provide him the information THEY want him to know.
UNDERSTOOD??????
Thank you and God Bless You,
Roberta Combs
December 1st, 2005 at 1:59 pm"Just because you think Bush lies, does not mean you must look for said lies in everything he says."
This is classic criminal Republican logic. By their view, if you suspect someone of stealing from you, you look the other way.
If I suspect someone of stealing from me, I INVESTIGATE EVERY GODDAMN MOVE THEY MAKE FOR EVIDENCE. Then I bust their ass.
So even if you think Bush lies, you won't look in the future to see if he is lying. What a nice ostrich-american you are.
BTW, we are all way past the point of "we think Bush lies" Hello, WE KNOW BUSH LIES! Every rat bastard smirk riddled word that comes from that piece of shit's mouth is a self-serving lie to keep his sorry ass out of the dock.
But I forgot, IOKIYAR, handjob.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:00 pm#156
We also don’t overthrow all other despots because we don’t have relations with those countries like we have with Iraq. We don’t have a conncetion to Mugabe so we aren’t obligated to Zimbaweans to do anything about him. We didn’t have serious relations with Rwanda, like say Belgium does, to do anything about genocide there. We’ve never supporte North Korea so we don’t necessarily have to take Kim Jung Il out. We didn’t put the Mullahs of Iran in charge so we don’t owe the Iranians. We haven’t spoken to Castro in half-century and don’t owe Cuba anything.
Comment by Lyle — December 1, 2005 @ 1:23 pm
You can't be serious Lyle. So let me get this straight. We allow dictators to starve and kill their people while building a nuclear program as long as we don't have some sort of "relationship" with them? Are you serious. LMAOOOOOO!!!!! We aren't in jeopardy from North Korea's nukes because we don't have a "relationship"?
Dumbya claimed that we were going into Iraq because they had nukes and chemical weapons that they could use on us in a moments notice. That aptly describes North Korea as well, but we're not asking Kim Jong Il to "bring it on". So why the difference? It has nothing to do with a relationship and everything to do with greed and oil. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:01 pmI think there’s a lot more to defending the border than arresting Mexicans. The fact that you equate border security with stopping “illegal Mexicans†says a lot about your point of view.
Comment by JK
OK fine. Let's close the border so homosexual Canadians can't get in and as a bonus we'll stop the flood of Mexicans and other poor Latins that are breaking down our social service network and costing us billions.
If you're thinking about organized terrorists, forget about it. They are like any other criminal professional; you might slow them down but you aren't going to stop them.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:01 pm"We didn’t put the Mullahs of Iran in charge so we don’t owe the Iranians. We haven’t spoken to Castro in half-century and don’t owe Cuba anything." - Lyle
Ummm, correct me if I'm wrong... But... Yes you did. Indirectly, but it was the Americans who put the Shah of Iran in place as a Dictator. Then when the Iranian people overthrew him they went to the extremist opposition. This is what happened in Imperial Russia too.
Perhaps America should just stop trying to put people they like into power in other countries, it never seems to work...
Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iran, Iraq,...
Z.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:01 pmIRI, back that up with a few quotes from our founding fathers. Waiting...
December 1st, 2005 at 2:03 pmDumbya claimed that we were going into Iraq because they had nukes and chemical weapons that they could use on us in a moments notice.
Comment by Str8UpNoChaser
Nobody claimed that dummy.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:03 pmTime magazine is not a reliable source.
Comment by wwallace — December 1, 2005 @ 11:18 am
Coming from a guy who gets his info from Talon News. I suppose you 'swallowed' all that Guckert/Gannon gave you?
December 1st, 2005 at 2:04 pm#150
Are a divorced gay man Ryan? When you can't win a debate you seem to resort to accusing the other party of being divorced. I, myself am a happily married man with another child due in January. Whats the matter with you Ryan? You can find enough HRA to satisfy you?
December 1st, 2005 at 2:05 pmThese are freaking human beings we are talkig about Think Progress!!!
Comment by Lyle — December 1, 2005 @ 11:12 am
Lyle, you're an idiot. When Bush said it was an Iraqi led, he didn't mean literally led, as in they stood 2 feet in front of the US, he meant it was an action designed and carried out by the Iraqi army, with the only US invlovement being tagging along, which, thanks to journalists, we know is ANOTHER LIE. Get a brain and think for yourself.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:05 pmIRI, yes he did and your denial isn't changing any minds.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:05 pmComing from a guy who gets his info from Talon News.
Comment by jparker — December 1, 2005 @ 2:04 pm
jparker,
wwallace thinks the 9/11 Commission final report is "a joke".
December 1st, 2005 at 2:06 pmMisinformed…..Ignorant….Call it what you want, but PLEASE do not call him a liar. He believes what he says because the people surrounding him provide him the information THEY want him to know.
My first reaction to that post was "Are you kidding?"
But what concerns me is that you are okay with your president being misinformed or ignorant, but it upsets you that people view him as a liar?
December 1st, 2005 at 2:06 pmIRI, back that up with a few quotes from our founding fathers. Waiting…
Comment by progressive and proud
At the core of modern liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. Those who practice liberalism should be hanged without benefit of trial and they should be buried in unhallowed ground, preferably Canada.
~George Washington
December 1st, 2005 at 2:07 pmAnd IRI-
You're a self-admitted Hitler-loving Nazi..not in the figurative sense, either; so that makes you not an American in anybody's book. Go to Argentina and we'll close the border behind you.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:07 pmOnce Bush starts telling the truth, instead of floating delusional lies and distortions to cover his miserable, incompetant, rhetoric-rich/performance-poor rear end, everyone will lay off him. People are catching on to the emptiness of his neo-Churchillian shtick.
The tragedy is that Bush is unworthy of leading our troops, leaving them in there for his own vainglorious self-validation.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:08 pmI-Right-I, cynicon implant, karl, junior, condi
It is time to get off of the internets...it is making you sound more foolish every time you spout off one of your canned (and discredited) talking points.
I swear, I see the same idiots at each of these boards and they obviously are employed by this administration. I have no doubt that our taxpayer money is being spent funding these retards.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:09 pmevery president has advisors, but they also have a general knowledge of what is going on themselves, they check facts and get infor from different sources as opposed to just believing everything they here...so we all say (not you trolls) he is a liar, but you say he is just a stupid chimp....an oldie but goodie from 2k:
December 1st, 2005 at 2:10 pmBehind you all the way Ryan! Since the fools only want to talk to you, get them to swear that they are not on the payola. Remember to remind them that 'lying' is a 'sin' punishable by eternity in hell with Karl and Junior.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:12 pm#174
Why must you pretend that only democrats are demanding accountability from this administration? They have been admonished by people from all across the political spectrum. Yet when you make your arguments, you say democrats. Is that they only way you can make yourself actually believe what you type? Just curious.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:12 pmRandy dost protest too much. How does it feel, Ryan, to have such devotees? Don't post your home town though, these guys are way too obsessed. Strange perverse trolls.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:12 pmOK fine. Let’s close the border so homosexual Canadians can’t get in and as a bonus we’ll stop the flood of Mexicans and other poor Latins that are breaking down our social service network and costing us billions.
If you’re thinking about organized terrorists, forget about it. They are like any other criminal professional; you might slow them down but you aren’t going to stop them.
And you're suggesting that slowing them down is a bad idea?
December 1st, 2005 at 2:13 pmFood for thought for those not on a diet of Liberal double-speak and bald faced lies.
The Burgeoning Alliance Between Leftists and Islamists
Chris Adamo
In the wake of the information explosion of recent years, Americans can now find any “version†of the news that they like. Press accounts of the same international events are often unrecognizably altered from each other, with no apparent connection to reality. Thus, alarming occurrences are often distorted in order to prevent their significance from becoming apparent to the public at large.
Yet the resulting false sense of security in which some may then choose to bask can suddenly come crashing down before them, as did the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001.
[...]
Clearly, little has changed among the American left since it ascended to prominence during the Vietnam era. Back then, brutality was not personified by the genocide of the Soviets, the Communist Khmer Rouge and their Killing Fields, nor the wanton slaughter of Vietnamese by the millions in the wake of the U.S. departure from that nation. Rather, it was singularly characterized by Lieutenant William Calley and the My Lai massacre. Now, to hear it from liberals, 9-11 was little more than a historical fluke to which the best response may well be indifference. Furthermore, the ensuing terror war has been a singular violation of human rights, defined not by the toppling of indescribable tyrants, but by a few terrorist inmates who were forced to play "dog pile" at the hands of some admittedly perverted U.S. prison guards.... During World War II, it was through the likes of "Tokyo Rose" that America's mortal enemies worked to undermine troop morale and destroy its will to continue the fight. But the mouthpieces of militant Islam need not engage in such efforts, since the American left has accepted the responsibility to wage this facet of the war on the home front."
December 1st, 2005 at 2:15 pmhttp://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/cadamo_20051124.html
IRI- Don't respond to my comments. I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation, and I don't need someone who obviously has no respect for the 8th Amendment, and has probably never read the Constitution in his life, butting into my conversation.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:15 pmI-R-I,
"Dumbya claimed that we were going into Iraq because they had nukes and chemical weapons that they could use on us in a moments notice.
Comment by Str8UpNoChaser
Nobody claimed that dummy.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 1, 2005 @ 2:03 pm"
Straight from the dummy's mouth on the dummy's own website in 2002 -
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
You'll notice the fitting title - Iraq - Denial and Deception. They got Orwell done to a T.
This is just too easy...
December 1st, 2005 at 2:15 pm#213 -- kharma, nice paranoid delusional post. Why would this administration waste time and $ on this puny site? Doesn't make any sense.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:18 pmThe person who said Iraq was an imminent threat was Democrat Jay Rockefeller.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:19 pmAs Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.
-George Washington
Eat that, IRI.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:19 pmjparker is a chickenhawk coward traitor.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:19 pmhey, little boy i-right is back...the billy mays commercial is over & he's done jerking off, and has returned to explain to all us dumbasses how stupid we are, and that he's so rough & tough, and when he gets done playing with his gi joes he's gonna whoop all our asses.or his momma will...
December 1st, 2005 at 2:20 pmi think that pineapples are awesome and that america is stupid if they think that bush is the only liar in the US government. republican, democrat, greens, whoever - they are all liars and willing to advance whatever agenda at the cost of others - IT'S THE AMERICAN WAY people. get used to it or get out of the country and go to some other place that is not corrupt - like canada.....oh whoops not there - like france - oh whoops not there......like china - oh whoops not there.......
get the point? however, when lies are revealed for what they are it's time to swallow you're pride and put away those $5 flags that you all put up on your SUVs post 911 and admit that we as a country did wrong and now we have to pay the price for what we did and mop up innocent iraqi guts all accross that sand box over there. who cares that 2100 troops have been killed, over 15k trrops injured. what's new in any of this anyway? it's human nature to control and kill.
liberals are stupid and conservatives are stupid - each blinded by their own ideals - and that's what makes you all perfect amerikans. go read your bibles. im going to go to my buddy's gay wedding now, listen to some obscenities on the radio, smoke some marijuana, burn a bible and then masturbate.
WEEEEEE!!!!!
December 1st, 2005 at 2:23 pmBen,
What soldiers are you talking to?
I have a whole BATALLION os soldiers here who DO NOTwant to go to IRAQ and feel that this is an UNJUST war! I think you'd better check your facts, because the MAJORITY DO NOT want to be in IRAQ, and to think that they do is surely a misguided sentiment on your part!
ASSUME makes a ASS out of U and ME! You may want to remember that next time!
December 1st, 2005 at 2:24 pmOver 20000 (American?) Soldiers Dead. Is Iraq a Threat?
December 1st, 2005 at 2:25 pmwith numbers like these, how could it not be?
wait a minute, whos is the threat to America?
OBL?Aganistan Nation?Iraq Nation?Saddam Hussain?
N.Korea? Cuba? Venesula? Pres. Chavis? Pres. Castro?
Russia? China?
The Whole World? God?
WHO SPECIFICALLY IS THE THREAT? 911 !
You have quoted that before; the only one you know I'm sure. Liberalism, as Washington knew it, was a different animal.
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism"
December 1st, 2005 at 2:26 pm~George Washington.
#222 - Good work. Feed them the regugitation that they continue to spew here. They think they are opening minds. Show us all what they are really doing here - trying to recruit.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:29 pmcynicon
December 1st, 2005 at 2:29 pmYou are a liar and a moron that uses editorials as source material...good one. Sort of like your VP, leaking a lie and then pointing to the paper that printed it and calling it a source of concern.
If you can't even see that then I have no need of you since you are obviously doing this for something other that some form of self-conviction. Hmmmm...maybe you are instead involved in this as some form of self-preservation?
I hereby declare you dead and no longer part of this discussion. RIP MF
I second that, Kharma. Poof
December 1st, 2005 at 2:32 pmJeez,
I go away from my computer for an hour and it becomes
"Trolls' Ice Capades" or something.....
What bug crawled up their collective asses?
December 1st, 2005 at 2:32 pmThe truth about ol'W is really buggin' 'em...
Iraq has oil and dollar wealth,
December 1st, 2005 at 2:32 pm
IRI-
Regarding your spoiled brats quote a ways back (#201)...I just finished reading your posts on the BOR thread and found
"And I’m burning twice as much in my new 5000 lb. gas guzzling 4X4 that I was able to write off on my taxes. "
You sound a lot more spoiled than me...it sounds you can afford whatever you want, which is where you probably get your transparent balls from,
December 1st, 2005 at 2:33 pmmoney =/= intelligence, courage, or authority
Maybe if you were living in the real worls, living paycheck to paycheck or if gas affected you, you would be more interested in what is really going on in this country instead of attacking posters with nonsense
I love it when fascists make up poorly constructed quotes attributed to the founding fathers to justify their insane views. It's even funnier when they claim to know what Washington, Jefferson, etc would do to their opponents.
Total masturbatory fantasies.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:34 pmAlmost forgot:
[high-fives progressive and proud]
December 1st, 2005 at 2:35 pm#203
Dumbya claimed that we were going into Iraq because they had nukes and chemical weapons that they could use on us in a moments notice.
Comment by Str8UpNoChaser
Nobody claimed that dummy.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 1, 2005 @ 2:03 pm
Nobody? Is that what Fox News tells you? Eat this :
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." - Vice President Dick Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002.
"After 11 years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more." - President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002.
"Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them." - Bush, Nov. 3, 2002.
"The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world." - Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5, 2003.
*Awaiting a response*
December 1st, 2005 at 2:38 pmThe Shah was put in by the U.S. and the U.K. And the mullahs came after the Shah and because of the Shah, but the U.S. did not ever support the Mullahs or support their installation into power.
The U.S. did support Saddam's regime though, which is why we were obligated to the Iraqis to get rid of Saddam. When you spill milk, you clean up your mess.
The mess is Iran is the mullahs doing.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:38 pm"A good country song taps into strong undercurrents of family, faith, and patriotism."
~George Bush
Does anyone honestly think this guy is going to go down in history as anything but a dolt? Seriously?
December 1st, 2005 at 2:40 pmjparker is a chickenhawk coward traitor.
Comment by wwallace — December 1, 2005 @ 2:19 pm
Would this fall uder the category of "Weak Schoolyard Retort"? In that case, I submit: "Your Mama."
Shall we revisit the definition of the term chickenhawk? [see also: wwallace]
Bye, Chauncey.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:41 pmGo away, Lyle. You are hereby marginalized.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:41 pmI don't what it is, Lyle, but goddamnit you just sound so soft. Like a reluctant stooge.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:41 pmZwack,
I don't care to proofread. People can understand what I'm saying.
And you don't come around here a lot if you think "Republican" or "Conservatives" do most of the personal attacks around here. Everytime some one in favor of the War or says something that is not a liberal cliche they get labelled a "troll" and are told they are "crashing the party" and they are told they are "stupid".
You need to read some more of Think Progress to appreciate what I said.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:41 pmDo you have soft, thin hands Lyle? Pale? Parched?
December 1st, 2005 at 2:42 pm#229 You saying that I better check my facts does not make your statements correct. Your statements are not supported by the neumbers compiled in a number of surveys and polls. Your claim of having served does not give you authority over the truth just because you say you served. I could say that I was a UN inpector and we actually found WMD's. There is no way to validate whether people are who they say they are here. At least within reason. One thing is for sure that statements you have been making about our servicemen are not consistent with respected organizations that compile and collect such information. At least try being honest and not so caught up in saying anything that will support your feelings.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:43 pm#231 - IRI is lying with his George Washington quote...
December 1st, 2005 at 2:45 pmYou're not smug enough to be Ben Ginsberg, Ben. Sorry!
December 1st, 2005 at 2:45 pmI suppose wwallace is off to another thread until he is chased away once again by reality.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:45 pmdano,
Excuse me, but I happen to not think Bush is "lying" when he says the Iraqis 'led' during this battle or are taking control of some military operations or are controlling the use of American forces. So why would I take Bush to task on this issue in this forum? That doesn't make any sense.
If you want an example of where I think Bush is wrong, how about the Defense of Marriage crap. He is wrong on that. However, what's interesting is that he has dropped the whole idea of it. I guess he thinks it isn't worth it, which I can appreciate... can you?
December 1st, 2005 at 2:45 pmI thought so-who is the quote, Terry?~
December 1st, 2005 at 2:46 pmI think sex with barnyard animals is entirely appropriate, it is when you add marijuana that it becomes a sin.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:46 pmOoops...ignore that last post, wrong discussion.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:46 pmThis is not a war. Congress did not declare war, and congress authorizing the President to use military force in a police action is not the same as going to war. No matter how badly Bush wants to be a "wartime president". He's not. It isn't. Any arguments about what is proper ettiquette or accpetable behavior(etc.) in wartime is invalid: this is not a war. If it WERE a war, then the Geneva conventions could not be ignored by even the flimsy (and wrong) excuse by the administration. Same for all of our other treaties.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:47 pmAnd stop using any reference to UN sanctions and UN inspectors not being allowed in the Iraq as a justification for invading: I do believe that the UN told us "Do not attack Iraq". You can't go in to protect the interests of the Un when the UN tells you not to do it. That is asking for permission, being denied it, and then going ahead anyway (which is what we did). No UN related argument for the invasion is acceptable. Period. They said "no".
Clinton is not president. And whatever he (or any other historical figure) did is not an excuse or justification for current actions. "Clinton lied about oral sex, therefore it is o.k. that Bush lied about....." That is a ridiculous argument, and you all know it. To bring up Clinton (who I myself have no great love for) is to admit that you have nothing substansive to bring to the argument. It is irrelevant (unless you're talking about what he did very recently, then it could be relevant). And it was the right wing (moderate to extreme) that spent a considerable amount of tax dollars and time, blitzing the media and news with crap about impeaching Clinton. So now the Democrats want to do the same, and they have well over 2,000 dead American soldiers, and a list of other matters far to long to get into here (not just a blue dress), as ammo and the Republicans are crying like litte babies. Grow the hell up. If you can dish it out, you better be able to take it, particularly when you raised the stakes.
Personal attacks? It is the case that the majority of ALL posts by Bush/neocon/republican/rightwing supporters who post here are filled with personal attacks and insults. Quite often one (particularly Mighty Aphrodite and IRI) will simply drop in one or two posts that consist SOLELY of insult and attack, and NEVER adress the topic or anyone's post (except to single someone out to insult). I guess it makes them feel 'special' to do this. But it is not the trait of the progressive and liberal posters.
And yes, there are troops who are for and who are against the invasion, as there have been in every single conflict... ever. But it IS the right (etc.) who continue to insist that ALL the troops are behind this, and their morale would be great if people would just stop questioning. News from a vet: "the troops" are your fellow countrymen (and women), and they think for themselves. The people at home being for or against the war only serve to fuel the already existant opinions of the troops on the front lines: but such opinion does not suddenly make loyalist soldiers who will follow any order unto death become "lefty-liberal-tree-hugging jesus loving (i.e. peace and pacifism loving)" people. accept it. Many (yes, MANY) soldiers on the ground want to come home. Period. Few want to stay as occupiers of a foreign country. What will YOU be doing this Christmass? How much of that time will you spend thinking about the soldiers over in Iraq, in harm's way, away from their families (some with children that they have never seen, and are missing those special first moments)? How many "care" packages are you preparing to send to the troops? And since you rightwingers are also ALL about liberating the Iraquis and helping them out (removing them from the yoke of their oppressive dictator, etc.), how many 'care" packages are you preparing to send to those Iraquis who have no house to go to because the US blew it up (because terrorists were allegedly hiding out there or nearby)? How many of them are you going to think about as you munch on your Christmass meal? Or do you really not care about them? Is that all one big fat lie to placate your ego and maintain the love for your special leader: as a WH aide said, "The President of the US is all-powerful." Get in step or get out. Isn't that the message of todays republican party? All hail the glorious leader, for he is of the line of David, and he is all powerful and can NEVER, EVER, EVER ... EVER, EVER ,EVER be wrong. Or are you all Israeli sypmathisers (i.e. terrorists)?
If a president lies, is it impeachable? Simple question for the trolls. Anyone care to answer it? One more time: IF A PRESIDENT LIES, IS IT IMPEACHABLE?
Is there any way to give wwallace, Ben, IrightI and giacomo a loop to post in, so the can jack each other off forever and leave the rest of ua alone?
December 1st, 2005 at 2:47 pmLyle,
December 1st, 2005 at 2:47 pmHe drops ALOT of things that he lies to Christians about to get votes.
Nobody claimed that dummy.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 1, 2005 @ 2:03 pm
Ahem, I-RIGHT-I, this assertion is completely untenable as Bush's own words contradict you:
President Bush Discusses Iraq with Congressional Leaders
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020926-7.html
That's the source of the famous "45 minute" claim, that was widely reported at the time:
Bush under pressure over 'dodgy' Iraq weapons claim
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/07/21/wmd21.xml
45-minute admission is a footnote to war
December 1st, 2005 at 2:47 pmhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7813-992785,00.html
Oops, I forgot Lyle
December 1st, 2005 at 2:48 pm*Awaiting a response*
Comment by Str8UpNoChaser
Show me the word "nuclear" and "imminent" and you win a cupie doll.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:49 pmRonC, they don't want to be alone. Get it now?
December 1st, 2005 at 2:49 pmI think sex with barnyard animals is entirely appropriate, it is when you add marijuana that it becomes a sin.
Comment by Lyle — December 1, 2005 @ 2:46 pm
Ooops…ignore that last post, wrong discussion.
Comment by Lyle — December 1, 2005 @ 2:46 pm
....didn't IRI do the very same thing on a different thread here a couple of days ago.....?
December 1st, 2005 at 2:50 pmI am not soft. I don't know what that means.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:50 pmToday's developments:
UAE to hold first limited elections
Thursday 01 December 2005, 15:19 Makka Time, 12:19 GMT
Sheikh Khalifa gave no date for the election to the council
The United Arab Emirates, UAE, will hold its first elections witn a vote to pick half the members of a consultative council, the president announced.
Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan said on Thursday that the Federal National Council, the closest body the country has to a parliament, will have half of its members elected and the other half appointed.
"In light of the changes and reforms our region is witnessing ... we decided to begin activating the National Assembly by electing half of its members," Sheikh Khalifa said in a speech to mark the UAE's national day.
The speech, carried on state news agency WAM, gave no date for the election to the council, whose 40 members are currently all appointed by the seven semi-autonomous emirates that make up the UAE.
UAE citizens are a small minority in the oil producing region, which has a population of 4 million.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:50 pm“nuclear†and “imminentâ€
There, what do I win?!
December 1st, 2005 at 2:51 pm#53
December 1st, 2005 at 2:53 pmIrag is in the Northern Hemisphere, technically its Fall there now (21 days till the start of Winter). Knit-picky, I know.
Samantics are tools of one losing an argument.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:53 pmI say smoke the pot and leave the animals alone.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:54 pmWith you there progressive and proud.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:55 pmNobody claimed that dummy.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 1, 2005 @ 2:03 pm
Ahem, I-RIGHT-I, this assertion is completely untenable as Bush’s own words contradict you:
Comment by Gregor Samsa
I don't see the word nuclear and I don't see the word immanent. I also don't see anything about the US mainland. I see 45 minutes to prepare a strike and we know that's possible because he did it in the Gulf War.
Just admit that you are twisting his words to back up your lies.
While you're at it read this and tell me it's not true.
Clearly, little has changed among the American left since it ascended to prominence during the Vietnam era. Back then, brutality was not personified by the genocide of the Soviets, the Communist Khmer Rouge and their Killing Fields, nor the wanton slaughter of Vietnamese by the millions in the wake of the U.S. departure from that nation. Rather, it was singularly characterized by Lieutenant William Calley and the My Lai massacre. Now, to hear it from liberals, 9-11 was little more than a historical fluke to which the best response may well be indifference. Furthermore, the ensuing terror war has been a singular violation of human rights, defined not by the toppling of indescribable tyrants, but by a few terrorist inmates who were forced to play “dog pile†at the hands of some admittedly perverted U.S. prison guards…. During World War II, it was through the likes of “Tokyo Rose†that America’s mortal enemies worked to undermine troop morale and destroy its will to continue the fight. But the mouthpieces of militant Islam need not engage in such efforts, since the American left has accepted the responsibility to wage this facet of the war on the home front.â€
December 1st, 2005 at 2:58 pmhttp://www.opinioneditorials.com/ guestcontributors/ cadamo_20051124.html
Oh, by the way Gregor....I left you a love note on the immigration thread. I've got to go...
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/29/political-winds/
December 1st, 2005 at 3:01 pmAgain, semantics are a fools devise.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:01 pmblowhards
December 1st, 2005 at 3:01 pmI-RIGHT-I
December 1st, 2005 at 3:02 pmAgain sourcing opinion pieces. Don't you have any facts to back up what you say? How about this opinion piece?
"George Junior picks his nose and eats it." My opinion. Does it make it true? Probably. Are you full of shit? Absolutely.
Is it possible that we are on the verge of having a democratic middle-east? Who is responsible for this? How can we stop this?
p.s. you can't
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/01/uae.elections/
December 1st, 2005 at 3:02 pmI-RIGHT-I
December 1st, 2005 at 3:04 pmObviously you are a lost cause. You should take the path of cynicon and die from this discussion. RIP MF
IRI, enemy of America, freedom, truth and all that is just and right and good. Find him and run him out of your town and keep him and his minority of lunatic fringe cohorts running until he gets back to Nazi Germany, fascist Italy or just drops dead from exhaustion. Good riddance to them all.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:05 pm265
276
What does that have to do with the USA?
December 1st, 2005 at 3:08 pmJust admit that you are twisting his words to back up your lies.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 1, 2005 @ 2:58 pm
That was the first part of my reply: It was claimed that Hussein could use his WMDs in a matter of minutes (45 to be precise). Now,as to the "nuclear" and "imminent", I was able to find this in the White House own web site:
Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction
At the time of the Gulf War, we acquired irrefutable proof that Iraq’s designs were not limited to the chemical weapons it had used against Iran and its own people, but also extended to the acquisition of nuclear weapons and biological agents.(...) For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html
As well as these other quotes that I have posted before:
President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution:
On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. We know the treacherous history of the regime. It has waged a war against its neighbors; it has sponsored and sheltered terrorists; it has developed weapons of mass death; it has used them against innocent men, women and children.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-7.html
Remarks by the President to Prague Atlantic Student Summit
Today the world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq. A dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people must not be allowed to produce or possess those weapons.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021120-4.html
Excerpts from the President’s Address to the Nation on Iraq:
December 1st, 2005 at 3:09 pmTonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America’s determination to lead the world in confronting that threat. The threat comes from Iraq. (…) We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. (…) While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone - because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place…. By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
I thank Bush everyday for the progres in Iraq, and Think Progress should too.
Har Har! Pardon me while I puke in my boots?
Ryan, don't get your knickers in a twist! Since we know now the repugs are paying journalists to rhapsodize how great the war is going in Iraq, what stops them from paying a few trolls like wwallace, lyle and that prime paedophile I right "I own you" I? They can, if they wish, suck Dick's little member for all I care!
December 1st, 2005 at 3:13 pmI also don’t see anything about the US mainland. I see 45 minutes to prepare a strike and we know that’s possible because he did it in the Gulf War.
Just admit that you are twisting his words to back up your lies.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — December 1, 2005 @ 2:58 pm
You are moving the goal posts. This is what Str8UpNoChaser posted and what you challenged:
Dumbya claimed that we were going into Iraq because they had nukes and chemical weapons that they could use on us in a moments notice.
Comment by Str8UpNoChaser — December 1, 2005 @ 2:01 pm
Str8UpNoChaser and I have has posted quotes where Pres Bush mentions Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons, and other quotes where he mentioned they could be deployed in a moment's notice.
Do not try to change the subject.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:16 pmCaption Contest: "So Anderson, you do know I boned Elizabeth Taylor, right? Still look good, don't I?"
December 1st, 2005 at 3:16 pm#276
December 1st, 2005 at 3:17 pmYou actually think that the various Islamic sects that have been at each others throats for, what, centuries? That they are all just throwing up their hands, going, "Yippee! Now we will have a democracy as engineered by a REPUBLIC for our benefit (they promise), and we will all just forget our deep rooted religious differences that we were raised with and get along well.
....Ummm, yeah, right. I hate to inform you, but unless the US remains in Iraq FOREVER as an OCCUPYING FORCE (which is what it is now, as it conducts raids and attacks and pretty much tells the Iraqui people what they can and can't do in their own country), there WILL be civil war (based on religion). There is no victory plan (I read that 35 page pile of crap - did you? It defines no plan whatsoever), and that is becuase there cannot be. Although since they have refused to define "victory" - and I assume that you all will, too - then we certainly can have no victory. Or can someone point out the ADMINISTRATION'S definition of "Victory in Iraq" in practical and realistically achieveable terms. Anyone? Someone?
And furthermore, you are including the ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST?!??!! WOW!!!! So, you claim that the ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST is on the verge of becoming one vast democracy. Does that mean that there will be no theocratic overtones? Or that the people of their nations will be able to DEMOCRATICALLY select how their government is run and who runs it? I'm impressed. Democracy for the whole middle east, no more oppression, no more terrorism, no more killings and bombings, no more invasion, just peace and love and happiness. Whew.
265
276
What does that have to do with the USA?
Comment by Lyle
The fact that fascist scum like you are IRI are in the USA is the problem. That's freedom for you, but we do have ways to deal with you and you will be finding this out shortly.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:19 pmIts part of the Iraq War dividend. The last thing that Al Qaeda (our enemy in case you have forgotten which you have)wants is the middle-east to become a bunch of democracies with no safe-havens for terrorists camps. We have sown the seeds of democracy in that part of the world and they are starting to sprout. It will be very similar to the transformation of the eastern European nations from Communist states to free republics and democracies. What does this have to do with the USA? It will make us safer at home and abroad.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:21 pmWell?!
What DOES the UAE have to do with the USA?!
December 1st, 2005 at 3:21 pm#266 Lyle
December 1st, 2005 at 3:22 pmWe don't agree on topic, but that WAS funny. I don't know what you win.
#265
Ben
I still haven't seen a response to my question. How many times does this administration have to be caught lying before they lose credibility with you? I've asked at least 3 times and you continue to ignore the question. I haven't called you names or been rude to you in any way. I'm starting to think that you don't have an answer. Kindly prove me wrong.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:24 pm"Iraq War dividend"
What a macho term!
December 1st, 2005 at 3:26 pmThere will never be any similarities between a broken down USSR and Muslim monarchies.
#286
December 1st, 2005 at 3:29 pmCan you exp[lain how "democracy" destroys terrorism? Are you saying that there are no terrorists who can effectively operate in a democratic society (and what form of democracy?) America is a Republic that operates along democratic principles. Britton is also a different version of a democracy. Do you claim that the nature of a democracy means that terrorists cannot exist in a manner that they find effective? How about the IRA? I think they were terrorist, and I think they THRIVED in a democracy... gee, it was for quite some time, was it not?....
So much for the "so called liberal media". If the Toledo Blade's 2004 Pulitzer prize winning Tiger Force series
December 1st, 2005 at 3:29 pmgot even a tenth of the press that the Swift Boat Liars got... well... How many Pulitzers and awards has Faux News and the Swift Boat Liars received? Your days are numbered. I really think you had better deal with it. The days of extremist, fascist morons hijacking the political right in this country are rapidly coming to an end. You may poke your ugly little heads back up again at the turn of every century when all the wingnuts come out of the woodwork but I doubt we will have to deal with you again for 1000 years, if ever again. Good-bye and good riddance.
Ben is obviously bought!
December 1st, 2005 at 3:30 pmStr8UpNoChaser
Give it up friend. The troll mob were not birthed to hold and open and an honest discussion (they would lose hands down), they are here to disrupt and antagonize...trying to break our spirit. But we are strong and will not yield to the evildoers, as junior so eloquently puts it.
Fear has started to creep in and the flailings for survival have begun.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:30 pmThis administration hasn't been caught lying. That was the last administration.
"Anybody who says there is no working relationship between al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence going back to the early '90s--they can only say that if they're illiterate. This is a slam dunk."
-- James Woolsey, CIA director under President Bill Clinton, November 2003
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed"
-- Madeline Albright, Sec. of State under President Bill Clinton, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"
-- Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."
-- Senator John Kerry, December 16, 2001
"in the post-Sept. 11 world, the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow in inspectors is in blatant violation of the United Nations 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power."
-- Senator John Kerry, Sept. 6, 2002
"There is also no question that Saddam Hussein continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction, and his success can threaten both our interests in the region and our security at home."
-- Senator John Kerry, Sept. 6, 2002
"If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."
-- Senator John Kerry, Sept. 6, 2002
"In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man [Saddam Hussein] should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them."
"I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new."
-- Senator John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
-- Senator John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Former Vice President Al Gore, September 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime poses a threat to his people, his neighbours and the world at large because of his biological and chemical weapons and his nuclear programme. They admitted to vast stores of biological and chemical stocks in 1995. In 1998, as the Prime Minister's speech a few days ago made clear, even more were documented."
-- Former President Bill Clinton, October 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
-- President Bill Clinton, 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons"
-- Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt," Hillary Clinton told the Senate the day she announced her support for the war.
"There's a very clear history and intention of not only building stockpiles and adding to what they already have of biological and chemical weaponry, but attempting to obtain nuclear capacity"
-- Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:30 pm-- Senator Jay Rockefeller, October 10, 2002
#265
Ben
I still haven’t seen a response to my question. How many times does this administration have to be caught lying before they lose credibility with you? I’ve asked at least 3 times and you continue to ignore the question. I haven’t called you names or been rude to you in any way. I’m starting to think that you don’t have an answer. Kindly prove me wrong.
Comment by Str8UpNoChaser
Never. He's a xtian crusader. Crusader Rabbit, because he is a cartoonish character and doesn't do the fighting except here at his keyboard.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:31 pmWhat is the matter with all you anti war liberals? My son is in Tal Afar w/ the 82nd Airborne, the President didn't lie. Stop splitting hairs the Iraqi Army did a nice job and deserves some credit from the President. American needs to stand behind the President and our troops instead of bad mouthing every move, we wouldn't even be in this war if Clinton, Bush, Regan and Carter had done thier jobs to begin with not to mention the nation of liberals that influence bad decisions of Presidents to not defend ourself and turn their heads from mass murder. Wake up people they do not like any of us and have no problem eliminating all infidels including liberal anti war, better than everyone personalities.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:31 pmThe USA single handedly built and democrtized the UAE you traitors.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:33 pmTiger Force proves that Kerry was right about our actions in Nam. Swift Boat Liars were liars and the press was complicit it publicly destroying Kerry's character. Bush is a coward and a draft dodger. We all know he is a liar.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:33 pmSteve Mathews,
December 1st, 2005 at 3:35 pmOnly Muslims will end Muslim terrorism. Not Clinton. Not Bush.
The USA single handedly built and democrtized the UAE you traitors.
Comment by Lyle
I'm sure the British will take issue with you. A guy named T.E. Lawrence comes to mind, you complete moron.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:35 pmwwallace: Your lengthy post copiled solely of cut and paste (you do this often - what's the matter, got no thoughts of your own, or did you run out of talking points?) is completely irrelevant. Who cares. And, by the way, I think Clinton was a lying piece of scum (thgough I don't go with a BJ being impeachable).
December 1st, 2005 at 3:37 pmWhat is the matter with all you anti war liberals? My son is in Tal Afar w/ the 82nd Airborne, the President didn’t lie. Stop splitting hairs the Iraqi Army did a nice job and deserves some credit from the President. American needs to stand behind the President and our troops instead of bad mouthing every move, we wouldn’t even be in this war if Clinton, Bush, Regan and Carter had done thier jobs to begin with not to mention the nation of liberals that influence bad decisions of Presidents to not defend ourself and turn their heads from mass murder. Wake up people they do not like any of us and have no problem eliminating all infidels including liberal anti war, better than everyone personalities.
Comment by Steve Mathews
You and your son are idiots. Why don't you join him over there. pack up your whole family. Don't come back.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:37 pmRandy "Duke" Cunningham. Viet Nam war vet and corrupt crook. And a pretty damn stupid and idiotic corrupt crook. Did I mention he was a Republican? Fvck his service in Viet Nam. He's off to jail. He'll have plenty of company soon and he's no Murtha. Murtha is a Democrat, btw.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:43 pmAnd screw that little pansy, John McCain, too.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:43 pmWell that's brave of you now isn't it. let me guess you get loaded, head to class to comtemplate the worlds problems and when you tire of that you go get something to eat.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:46 pmYou are all retards! GWB would never be caught in a lie ...
December 1st, 2005 at 3:46 pmRemember, girls, it's completely OK to smear war vets. You asked for it. Let's see if you can take it like you dished it out. Something tells me you little fascist pansies on the right can't.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:46 pmSteve,
December 1st, 2005 at 3:48 pmThis country has been too complacent in the past 5 years while the admin has ransacked this great nation for everything its worth. We have tried their way, and it was wrong. Do you remember how much simpler life was 5 years ago. We will not sit back for another three years and whatch this continuosly downward spiral!
THank God I Will NEVER EVER Have to Defend FREEDOM Ever again in my Entire Life!
December 1st, 2005 at 3:48 pmor downward sprial continue
December 1st, 2005 at 3:49 pmSteve, good luck to you and your son. How many of the Iraqi troops in Tal Afar were Kurdish PeshMerga? My understanding from various sites is that most of the functioning units are Kurdish and that had fairly extensive training and experience fighting against Saddam from 1991 to 2003. The Kurds are opposed to the Turkmens who live in and around Tal Afar as well as Haditha Qaim and other Anbar cities. They were more than willing to have 90% of the occupants leave the city and live in refugee camps.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:50 pmI fear that the # of Kurdish militia, along with the desire of the Kurds for autonomy (see the recent story of Norwegian company oil drilling contract in Kurdistan) will lead inevitably to the dissolution of the illusory state of Iraq. The Shiites want revenge, the Sunnis want to get back into power (or at least get a voice and a share of the oil) and the Kurds are going to assert their independence sooner rather than later. They have a functioning economy, oil revenue an offical infrastructure and an army. What else do you need? The Shia in the south have the same thing as well as a natural alliance with Iran ( including electricity supply contracts and oil)
I'd like to be optimistic,too, what do you have to go on?
Lyle's very patriotic comments as follows:
What the hell is wrong with this anyway Think Progress? Why do you want us and the Iraqis to lose and suck in Iraq? Do you think things will go better if a Hillary Clinton or Howard Dean junta are in power in D.C.? Regime change in Washington Think Progress doesn’t meat jack crap. Iraqis are going to still require our help and we should be proud of helping them. Stop continuing to sully our fellow citizens noble acts and the noble acts of the Iraqi people.
These are freaking human beings we are talkig about Think Progress!!!
=======================================================
Lyle,
If you are really sincere and you feel strongly about helping the Iraqi people, why are you here in the safety and comfort of your home ----why don't you volunteer and raise arms and fight the "insurgents" errr Saddam loyalists, rejectionists et al in Iraq. I think that would be the noble thing to do....and yehhh, while on that mission, can you haul Jenna's and Barbara's fat, overfed asses and take them with you...and yehhh might as well take Karen Hughes son! Remember, rhetorics meant nothing if you try to hide behind the emptiness of your words; otherwise, you just sound like someone I knew who tried to avoid the draft by enlisting bravely with the "safe group" and then just walked away and never even glanced back (I guess he was scared of being turned into a pillar of salt -----I guess that is why he started reading the History of Salt lately).
December 1st, 2005 at 3:51 pmThat lying sack of shit needs to be impeached. NOW.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:51 pmFriends,
If we, the citizens of the United States, knew the depth of the deception being perpetrated on us by the corporations and their right-wing stooges, we might wonder how they managed it.
Remoted controlled planes and demolitions on 9/11/01; the sacrficing of 3,000 people in the Towers; the creation of the Muslim terrorist monster; the bludgeon and rape of Afghanistan and Iraq; the decimation of the US economy; the shattering of the Constitution and Bill of Rights; the evisceration of all environmental protections; the loss of the right to vote (electronic voting). And the list goes on.
While we argue about who said what, they've stolen it all from all of us. Doesn't matter if you think you're a Democrat, Republican, Green, Independent, etc, that's inconsequential now.
What matters is how much debt you have and what income level your family is. Truly, the rest DOES NOT MATTER to our masters. We are being allowed the fantasy of elections and participation in democracy, but it's over.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:54 pm#295
This administration hasn’t been caught lying.
Comment by wwallace — December 1, 2005 @ 3:30 pm
AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*WIPING TEARS*
AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Now, that's comedy!
December 1st, 2005 at 3:54 pmThanks for the laugh.
Michael Ware draws a paycheck from Time, but his dispatches have been consistantly brilliant since the doomed Iraq war began. Prior to becoming Time's Baghdad senior journo, he spent many months "in the field" with Iraqis of various tribal and religious persuasions. Ware has seen the war from both sides, embedded with U.S.forces and from the camps and bases of those who oppose the infidel on their soil. Michael speaks fluent Arabic and is familiar with local dialects. He is intimately acquainted with the complex history of the Middle East, especially Iraq, and has achieved what no other Western journalist has done, that is, to see and report the war from both sides while breathing IED smoke and cordite.
His integrity is beyond reproach.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:57 pmVictory in Iraq would be for us to no longer have to depend on them and other countries in that region for oil. In 2006 I predict a much more progressive pres will be elected. Our nation will then change, hopefully, from a warmongering imperialistic society to one which encourages SUSTAINABLE LIVING. We will vigorously persue an alternative to fossil fuels. Our best and brightest will be encouraged no longer to be engineers of war, but rather engineers of peace. Weening ouselves from our addiction to oil is the first step. Other nations are so far ahead of us that we can ill afford another Bush. GEORGE W BUSH IS THE BIGGEST ENEMY TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND OUR ECONOMY.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:58 pm5 years!!! this started in the early 70's, no i'm sorry about 2000 years ago, why? because we didn't want to see the Jewish nation completely eliminated from the world along with several other countries join in that fight, remember?. 5 years ago wasn't the 1st world trade center a clue? i don't agree with any war, been there done that but, it's to late people we're in it for life no matter what stop trying to rationalize the "World Peace" ain't going to happen. I guess closing US borders to anyone for ever would be an answer.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:58 pm#289 I am not avoiding the question. When did you stop beating your wife?
I don't think this administration has lied in the manner that you are saying.
As I pointed out in #87 I think that any sitting president would have been faced with the same dilema. A serious threat that could result in the deaths of thousands maybe millions of Americans on our soil. They may have not had the luxury of time to verify how soon that threat could become reality. The decision to go after terrorists had a problem in that there is no United Terrorists nation. Putting troops in theater may have been the best option as it was presented to the president. The Saddam non compliance may have been presented as the dorr to do so.
The fact that most are unable to consider the bigger picture of what may have been the case is the reason that they were able to get Congress, including all your favorite Democrats, to go along.
What degree of dishonsty by the Democratic Party as it pertains to this war will cause you to consider that it is politics as usual for them? Even with US troops in theater?
December 1st, 2005 at 3:59 pmAs long as you hysterical leftwingers keep trying sleight-of-hand rather than honest arguments, the American people will keep rejecting you every election day.
The Time reporter only quibbled about the claim that the Iraqis "led" the assault. He seized on the interpretation of one word in the president's description of the battle, which otherwise seems accurate. So even an exalted figure like Times' Baghdad Bureau Chief has his axe to grind and can't be trusted. And anyone in his right mind already knows Anderson Cooper is a piece of liberal media scum, too.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:00 pm"they do not like any of us and have no problem eliminating all infidels"
It is this myth, above all others, that needs to be examined.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:01 pmstrong>Careful! Next Bush will be wanting to bomb our news media's headquarters!
December 1st, 2005 at 4:02 pm#295
In response to the question of Bush lying I posted this on #166. Of course I received no response from you Wallace. Since you've raised the question of Bush's honesty again I shall repost in hopes of a response:
President Bush did not lie about the war to liberate Iraq.
Comment by wwallace — December 1, 2005 @ 1:14 pm
Okay Wallace, I’ll bite. Was it not a lie to say that Iraq was an imminent threat that needed to be dealt with? It must be, because now according to your own words, we’re liberators. Which is it?
Was it not a lie to say that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for this entire farce and Americans wouldn’t have to foot the bill?
Was it not a lie to say that Iraq was the center of the war on terrorism?
Was it not a lie to claim that Sadaam was responsible for 9/11?
I could go on and on Wallace. I know you think I’m some leftist partisan, but you couldn’t be further from the truth. I simply demand accountability from those that represent me be they democrat or republican. We don’t live in a dictatorship and it’s about time people started realizing that.
Comment by Str8UpNoChaser — December 1, 2005 @ 1:30 pm
December 1st, 2005 at 4:05 pm"American needs to stand behind the President and our troops instead of bad mouthing every move, we wouldn’t even be in this war if Clinton, Bush, Regan and Carter had done thier jobs to begin with not to mention the nation of liberals that influence bad decisions of Presidents to not defend ourself and turn their heads from mass murder."
Your right. If Reagan and the Republicans had not put this "monster" in power in the first place, no other President would have to deal with him and his mass murder.
How fun to live your life in the absence of CONTEXT.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:07 pmTraining the Iraq army is a white elephant. To stay even with the Iraqi fighters the US has to use Abrams tanks, F15's , helicopter gunships, drones and the list goes on. The Iraqi army will never come up to speed for the next 10 to 20 years on this.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:07 pmThe only solution is politcal, but Chaney isn't giving up that oil by a long shot, no matter how many people die.
Dan, Steve
We had a foothold in the middle east, it was called Afghanistan. World support for America was huge during this war. However, junior wanted to go for double-or-nothing and that is what he got...nothing. He is a fool and you are fools for spewing his talking points without a second thought.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:08 pmBush Regime is A HITLER STYLE dictatorship
December 1st, 2005 at 4:08 pmBy the Way, How is Osama Doing these Days, You Traitors?
December 1st, 2005 at 4:10 pmHoled up in Crawford?
"What the President was that it was an Iraqi unit action, not an American unit action and not an action led by the American military. This WAS an Iraqi orchestrated event, with just American soldiers helping the Iraqi force.
...Comment by Lyle — December 1, 2005 @ 11:12 am
It's Lyle in Denial Time.
Lyle, you're reading comprehension needs some remediation. Please go over what Ware-- ok, I'll paste the relevant part:
"They were not leading. They were being led by the U.S. green beret special forces with them. Green berets who were following an American plan of attack who were advancing with these Iraqi units as and when they were told to do so by the American battle planners. The Iraqis led nothing."
Now, Lyle, what part of "The Iraqis led nothing" is it that you don't understand? And I suggest that you question Ware's comment when you get into the shower stall, but not now. Even Bush's favorite cheerleader in the Senate, Mr. Warner, attributes credibility to Mr. Ware's reporting!
I'm about ready to suspect that posters such as yourself are shills being paid by a branch of the GOP to contradict the ugly truth, no matter how it makes you look.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:11 pmAbsolutely Eyeball Kid.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:14 pmI truly believe we are conversing with Armstrong Williams and Judy Miller types. They come in packs and spew the same talking points.
Lyle, Ben
December 1st, 2005 at 4:15 pmDo you get paid by the lines, number of posts, or word count?
Typical Republican debate (as we see daily here):
Step 1: blindly reply with the daily talking points
Step 2: repeat the daily talking points
Step 3: repeat talking points again, but in different order
Step 4: compare opponents to hitler, insult them or call them traitors
Step 5: if all else fails, blame Clinton
December 1st, 2005 at 4:15 pmWhere do the trolls come from? are they on some payroll? i can't imagine that somebody would be here getting humiliated everyday out of their free will
December 1st, 2005 at 4:21 pmTHe prez speaks with fork tongue... on the one hand he says only the commanding officers in Iraq know how when and where the troops need to be reduced or deployed ... on the other hand he lies about an incident that should have been reported from the same people he recognizes as military commanders who he trusts and would not tell him anything he does not want to hear..
December 1st, 2005 at 4:21 pmBut the truth will not be heard until we get a Prez who is believable, trustworthy, honest, integral, non-secretative, and one the people voted for...
Since the battle of falluja was mentioned. Why doesn't anybody bring up the fact that the US used chemical weapons against citizens of that city? White Phosphorus was used as an attack weapon. It can only be sued legally in war for illumination or smoke scream. WP burns skin off to the bone. It was used in a "shake and bake" method in Falluja. That is, shake iraqi civilians out of homes and them drop explosives all around. An italian documentary showed people, women and children in kitchens who's bodies were burnt to the bone and still had clothes on.
This is a chemical weapon and a war crime. This administartion are guilty of war crimes and should be held accountable.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:22 pmSome information for #6 ... Do some research before you speak about something you have NO IDEA about. There are NO noble acts that this country partakes in, only noble citizens of this great nation. The United States government ONLY gets involved if we have something to GAIN. We went to Iraq on a LIE. The real reason we're there is to gain an economic stronghold in that part of the world, a part of the world where there's an abundant supply of OIL. There are and have been PLENTY of dictators who have tortured their own people and the USA did/does NOTHING. Hell, Hitler killed 6 million Jews and WE DID NOTHING ! Reagan supplied the weapons years ago to the SAME people we are fighting TODAY in hopes they would defeat communists. Turn off FOX News, asshole and read some BASIC history.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:23 pm#246 "I don’t care to proofread. People can understand what I’m saying."
I had trouble working the odd bit out, but if you are going to complain about someone else's education then you need to avoid coming across as though you were functionally illiterate. It's the old pot calling the kettle black thing.
'And you don’t come around here a lot if you think “Republican†or “Conservatives†do most of the personal attacks around here. Everytime some one in favor of the War or says something that is not a liberal cliche they get labelled a “troll†and are told they are “crashing the party†and they are told they are “stupidâ€.'
I come around here quite frequently as some of the others might tell you. I have seen personal attacks by both sides, I admitted that, what I also said was that generally speaking the Republican trolls have come in, stated a talking point, refused to debate it and then posted a personal attack. For example someone told me that my comments about what I thought I would think if I were an enlisted soldier were not valid. He was not an enlisted soldier either. He then went on to claim (laughably in my opinion) that his point of view was valid simply because he was "older, wiser and more intelligent" than me. I had not attacked him, he attacked me. Let me try another tactic here though. If you're going to complain about personal attacks then it only makes you look like a hypocrite if you include personal attacks in the same posting.
"You need to read some more of Think Progress to appreciate what I said."
I respectfully disagree. I was commenting on my perceptions, and in that respect my comments are entirely valid.
Z.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:25 pm#168 - Chris, you forgot a few:
8 - Deny everything, including the proven facts. After all, it's not true if you say it's not true loudly enough.
9 - You can never move those goalposts far enough! When proven wrong, redefine your statements with narrower and narrower criteria. ("Bush never lied by using the word 'effulgent' while standing on one foot in a pile of rutabagas with his left index finger up his right nostril. So there, ya lefties!")
10 - Throw in a smear for good measure. Decorated, hawkish war veterans can easily become "willing tools of the left", embedded reporters can be "traitorous Al Qaeda mouthpieces", and informed, well-documented commentary can be "typical liberal talking point lies." Bonus points if you accuse your opponent of something which either you personally or the ideologues you defend are blatantly guilty of!
11 - Don't forget the demoralization tactics. Just repeat over and over again how the Democrats will never regain seats in Congress, and in fact will lose more seats. If you keep repeating these points, the lefties will eventually give up in despair and not bother to show up to vote in the next election. No, really!
December 1st, 2005 at 4:28 pmAbout damn time that America is starting to wake up. I preach about the evils day and night on my blog but only a handful of folks are wise enough to see that I am correct. George + Bush = Liar.....Dick + Cheney = Liar.....Republican = Liars!!!!
December 1st, 2005 at 4:29 pmHis integrity is beyond reproach.
Comment by FuzzFlash
Only to another ratbastardcommiemofo.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:33 pmhmmm, Clinton lied and got impeached...could the same be true for Bush? PLEASE TELL ME SO, PLEASE?
December 1st, 2005 at 4:35 pmWho are these Bush supporting nitwits who continually post on these liberal websites? Why do they have free time to randomly post comments? There's a war on and military recruitment is down 41%! Aren't there any military recruitment offices in you're areas? Or do you want Amurka to lose in Iraq?
goarmy.com
December 1st, 2005 at 4:35 pmOf course you all realize that your cross dressing 'Freedom Fighters'in Tal Afar ran away from the Iraqi army disguised in women's clothing don't you?
December 1st, 2005 at 4:35 pmhmmm, Clinton lied and got impeached...could the same be true for Bush? PLEASE TELL ME SO, PLEASE?
December 1st, 2005 at 4:35 pmPut on your western caps people. It's cowboys and Indians slaughtern style. Or it allways has been?
Your monument on the Capital Building in Washington is the god mars sitting high above the masses. This statue is dedicated to the god of war. Your government banks on war in the trillions. Peace makers you ain't.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:37 pmAbout damn time that America is starting to wake up.
Comment by Kimberhaze
That's right. A Donk can't even buy an election anymore. America HAS awakened.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:37 pmStr8up, #324, you're the one lying, the Bush admin. didn't make the claims you attribute to them.
Democrat Jay Rockefeller is the one who claimed Iraq was an "imminent" threat.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:40 pmYour monument on the Capital Building in Washington is the god mars sitting high above the masses. This statue is dedicated to the god of war. Your government banks on war in the trillions. Peace makers you ain’t.
Comment by Synchronicity
I'd say if we can kill enough peace breakers we'll be pretty close to being peace makers. Of course we may have to kill a few European journalists first but that's a small price to pay.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:41 pm#320 I can't believe I actually waited for this.
#289 I am not avoiding the question. When did you stop beating your wife? LMAO What wife? Marrying another woman (yes I am a woman) isn't legal in the U.S. Try to keep up Ben.
I don’t think this administration has lied in the manner that you are saying. So there are different kinds of lies? Okay, which kind do you think they are guilty of?
As I pointed out in #87 I think that any sitting president would have been faced with the same dilema. A serious threat that could result in the deaths of thousands maybe millions of Americans on our soil. They may have not had the luxury of time to verify how soon that threat could become reality.
This just doesn't wash Ben. It's a lot of conjecture. Would, could, should, maybe. Why can't we discuss what did happen instead of dealing in the hypothetical?
The decision to go after terrorists had a problem in that there is no United Terrorists nation. Putting troops in theater may have been the best option as it was presented to the president. The Saddam non compliance may have been presented as the dorr to do so.
We agree on something Ben. There is no terrorist nation. That is why it is irresponsible to declare a war on "terra" while having no clear objectives or a timetable. How do you wage war on an emotion? Not clear is it? Rep. Tom Delay had this to say about Clinton's bombing campaign:
“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan todayâ€
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
Please explain how this statement does not apply to our current administration?
The fact that most are unable to consider the bigger picture of what may have been the case is the reason that they were able to get Congress, including all your favorite Democrats, to go along.
What bigger picture Ben? Are you speaking of this great region of democracy that you think we're creating in the Middle East? That's laughable. Would it work for you Ben? Could another nation invade the United States and bomb us into a new way of life? Would their occupation be able to change hundreds of years worth of culture here? I think not. It's not going to work in the Middle East either. BTW, since you know me so well, who are my favorite democrats?
What degree of dishonsty by the Democratic Party as it pertains to this war will cause you to consider that it is politics as usual for them? Even with US troops in theater?
Comment by Ben — December 1, 2005 @ 3:59 pm
Give me specifics Ben. What have the democrats (who aren't in control of anything right now) been dishonest about pertaining to this war? Give me specifics and I shall respond.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:46 pm"POTUS 43" should be his new name....
December 1st, 2005 at 4:52 pmthe genius Lyle needs to quit being an ostrich.
America is not a nation of war mongers. Lyle is
living in a fantasy land where he gets to be the big honcho with the big gun. Probably his fantasy is brought about by having such a small "gun" to begin with.
Str8UpNoChaser has been drinking a little more
than his self confessed alchohol. He has drunk
the kool aid.
Oh, now I get it: "*tongue firmly in cheek*
Comment by Str8UpNoChaser
Anyone who can call the President a liar over this issue has his *head firmly up his ass*."
Since his own head is up his own arse, we now know
just which cheek his tong is firmly into.
What these two guys really need is a permanent trip to Afghanistan. They can live out their lives as killers, jumping in and out of holes they seem to love.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:53 pmGood riddance I would say.
Lied to get us in and now lied to get us out. What's the difference if we get out? Why didn't Anderson Cooper report on the lies we heard to get us in back then? Why are these lies any juicier? We already know he is a liar. Did we really expect that to change? Grow up folks this is about p o l i t i c s not truth. Get real! The Democrats lied to you as well, remember. They were corrupt to their eyeballs too, remember? If you hate liars than you have to hate all politicians, not just the one's you conveniently catch to meet your agenda.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:57 pmThe Real Problem With Republicans: They Declared War on the U.S. Long Before They Declared War on Iraq.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:03 pmUke,
December 1st, 2005 at 5:05 pmThe budget was balanced only after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994. Clinton didn't propose any balanced budgets before that.
[...] A TIME reporter who’s embedded in Iraq says Bush lied in yesterday’s speech. [...]
December 1st, 2005 at 5:07 pmI did not have war with that country!
That man deserves to have his P removed!
The Missing P Project
http://www.geocities.com/themissingPproject
December 1st, 2005 at 5:13 pmI am SICK of you rightwing apologists! YOu think you can just throw in the word "liberal" or "liberal elite", and the President is magically exempt from accountability. Get real! The burden of proof is now on you, you must provide intricate details as to every dollar spent on the war and reconstruction to validate the position of your president and his cabinet. You can't do that, so get off your high horses and stop pointing fingers with respect to "morality" You now have what a minimum of 5 Congressmen and associated politicos under indictment. I am sick of this divisive use of fringe issues like abortion and stem cells that are getting mainstream America to vote against their own best interest in favor of the corporations that will squash them. How many more federal government whistleblowers is it going to take for you to quit lying to yourselves.
You've got some splainin to do.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:13 pmMmmmmmm...Kool-Aid
December 1st, 2005 at 5:18 pm#355-
December 1st, 2005 at 5:19 pmit was confirmed by trent lott, that when clintons health care initiative was shot down, that clinton decided to make balancing the budget his top priority. he didn't have to propose a balanced budget. no president HAS to propose that, it is right and what every public official should try to do. jerk
Wally is off his meds today.
He's posting like crazy all over TP.
We should all ignore him. He's clearly delusional at this point.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:19 pmIt's no accident that Clinton spike being very phallic.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:21 pmExcuse me, but what's with this "battling with Al Qaida" crap? Were they wearing Al Qaida uniforms? How does he know they were Al Qaida? Carrying the Al Qaida flag, were they? Just furthering the myth that Al Qaida is in Iraq.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:21 pmSchwing! Party on!
December 1st, 2005 at 5:22 pmIt didn't take long for some moron to blame on Democrats the consistent pattern of deficits under Republican presidents. Sorry. That's pretty lame. Under every Democratic president since Johnson, the deficit got better. Under every Republican president, the deficit got worse. I thought this article was a pretty good one:
December 1st, 2005 at 5:23 pmAnd what do I see?!
Monica!
December 1st, 2005 at 5:24 pmwally, ben, i-sowrong-i
December 1st, 2005 at 5:27 pmThey are all shrills for the administration. They are dead and should be ignored as such.
#323
What a wasted exercise for bush to bomb Al Jazeera when his real enemy is CBS.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:29 pm#350 The funny part about your response is you seem to think I was trying to make an insulting response. I was not.
I was stating the old argument of someone responding to the question of beating their wife and when did it stop. Your question makes the assumption that I accept the fact that someone is lying and how many lies will it take to be too many.
As far as what kind of lies the answer is yes there are times when the truth cannot be told because it has implications that have undesirable consequences.
You contend that I am making hypotheticals and I say that much of the left's arguments is filled with assumptions. For instance the assumption that information was manipulated for war. In the bipartisan committee on 9/11 it was concluded that some of the additional information not provided to all of Congress actually made a greater case for going to war.
Regarding dishonesty by Democrats just calling the President a liar at every turn is dishonest. If however they say that the intelligence that they based their decision on was wrong and Bush is responsible for that mistake then they would be arguing honestly. That's the difference. Even the tactics by the Minority House leader Reid. Calling a special rule when it was a fact that they had agreed to a meeting to discuss the status of the 9/11 followup report the following week. Reid lied, he was dishonest.
The left will not regain power by continuing to use cheap tactics. Americans may not like a lot about this war but they will insist on an honest debate. It appears the left prefers deception more.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:34 pmRe: #327
Bad Kharma.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:35 pmWow. I just came accross this site and read most of the posts. Glad to see debate isn't dead in this country (even though name calling perhaps should be). I think some of you are being a bit harsh on the neo-cons who come to the site, it isn't so much that they are fascists, nazis or anything of the like, but rather they believe in America, the City on the Hill. As such, many refuse to believe that anything we do can ever be wrong, because well, America is the land of the free and the home of the brave, a shinning example to the world that can do no wrong. It is a naive idea to believe in, because well everyone does a little wrong (many times alot) even without wanting to. The US sometimes tries to help people abroad by sending them food aid, which comes from surplus American production thanks to our Ag subsidies. In so doing, sometimes we reduce the viability of a country to rebuild itself, by making the people dependent on our food aid, rather than say helping their own farmers get back up and producing for their nation (this bad is exacerbated because of our AG subsidies which were created to help struggling American farmers). The idea of America the good is an appealing one, one that I myself still believe in. However, when looking at events in the "real world" as Americans we need to examine what it is that our country is doing. Why? To ensure that what our country does is good. Our forefathers understood that power corrupted all, and hence set up a system of checks and balances that sought to mitigate that necessary evil (Power). That idea rested on the belief that an educated America (or american citizenry) would also keep guard to ensure that noone usurped absolute power for themselves. What has happened in recent times (1950s - present) is that powerful dynasties have been built, the Kennedy's, the Bushes, Clintons etc. and the two parties have become so wrapped up in their own ideologies that they refuse to listen to each other. In essense, we have lost the center. Now we have people on the left screaming Bush Lied, Nazi, Fascist and whatever else you want and people on the right screaming MSM lies, Traitors, Cowards, and other euphemisms that void understanding of the issues that plague us in the 21st century.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:38 pmMany disagree as to whether we should have gone into Iraq, or not. I submit, that that question is no longer relevant. We should investigate how we got into a war based on what we now know to be faulty information but in so doing, we cannot loose sight of the fact that we are there now and have a responsibility to ensure that Iraqis have a chance at a better life. To do so, it is important to criticize the administration when we think things are going in the wrong direction. My favorite quote is from Teddy Roosevelt who once said "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." I like the quote because as we all know, the man was not someone who was without controversy, yet he recognized that he was not omnipotent and that as Americans it was our responsibility to speak up to ensure that our will was done. As many of you have argued, passionately I might add, disagreeing with the President is not, and should never be grounds for being labeled a traitor, neither should agreeing with the president be treasonous. The problems our country is faced with are huge, and one side can never have all the answers, noone has a monopoly on truth, we all have small tidbits. That is why debate and dialogue is important because in this way we can all learn and arrive at more truth, even if not absolute truth.
Going back to Iraq, I say the argument as to whether we should have gone or not is moot is well, because we are there now, and if we leave we will be guilty for every single death that comes about as a result of a full fledged Civil War, or even regional war that starts after our departure. Leaving what is now our responsibility (Iraq), following the "you break it, you own it rule," and as such it is not an option. What we do have to do is call the administration on its lies regarding Iraqi troop preparedness, progress on the war to ensure that we are indeed making progress. We all want our troops to come home, the only way we can responsibly go about it, is to ensure that the mission is accomplished. Criticizing the president does not necessarily mean wanting to fail in Iraq, on the contrary, it means that we want to ensure that if the job needs to be done (which it does) it be done right. The president is in office not to listen or look out for the interests of only Republicans, neo-cons, or religious groups, we are one country, hence he is there to listen and look out for the interests of all Americans, republicans or democrats alike.
Sorry. The link was omitted from my post. I don't exactly know why. I'll try again:
Criminally Full of Sh!t
Again, this puts into the context the trustworthiness of the Republicans, at least since Reagan. They are trying to "drown the government" in a bathtub, as Grover Norquist has admitted. The Iraq war is just another notch in their belt.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:39 pmHas anyone here seen/heard/read Senator Russ Feingol'd excellent ops re: the Iraq debacle and calls for withdrawal? While he was actually making intelligent, well-thought out comments, Kerry-Clinton useless ones were making their usual "please the Hawks stay a different course" noises.If you will recall, Feingold was,I believe, the ONLY senator to say Nay to the Iraq invasion.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:39 pmBush & CO...bonafide liars and manipulators of the truth!
December 1st, 2005 at 5:41 pmForgot to include anything that touched on the relevant portion of the original post. In the instance shown above, it is obvious that the President either lied, or unwittingly misled the American people with regard to Iraqi troop preparedness. This is not spin, or treasonous commentary, rather it is a fact based on the available evidence. I can't speak to what the President thinks he did, but the question must be posed, no matter if the President is a Democrat or Republican. The President could just as easily have demonstrated progress by citing what many republicans have cited here on this blog, that Iraqi troops did not cut and run but fought valiantly against the insurgents in Tall Afar. He, however, suggested (wittingly or not) that they had led the operation even though all the evidence says otherwise. Calling into question what he said, which the evidence contradicts, is not treasonous, rather it is patriotic because it shows that as an American you using your right s and responsibilities to ensure that we continue to have responsible government.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:44 pmWhen Bush says the Iraqis "led", He omitted the rest of the quote "...by the nose into battle."
December 1st, 2005 at 5:45 pmWhat? Bush exaggerated a war story from Iraq in his speech? Next you'll be telling me that we are paying for propagandizing war stories for their public newspapers and presenting them as legitimate news.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:45 pmI'm sorry,but could someone refresh my memory and tell me why we went to war with Iraq?Was it WMD,was it spreading democracy or was it to topple Saddam?Maybe you could clear this up i right i,since you seem to know so goddamned much about everything.How about it fatmouth,do you know or are you to busy trying to sort out all the lies too?Your world is collapsing extreme rightists and so is Bush's,thanks to Mr MURTHA,who by the way is more of a man than The Chimp or i right i could ever hope to be.All hail Mr Murtha and may he have many long days and many pleasant nights!
December 1st, 2005 at 5:50 pmUke, Congress sets the budget, not the president. Clinton didn't propose any balanced budgets until after the Republicans pushed him to do so beginning in 1996.
Your juvenile name-calling won't change these facts.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:51 pmI'm tired of Shrub's lies, and I know you are too.
Take the Jim Beam Challenge --
Knock on all your neighbors doors this weekend and tell them exactly how you feel about Resident Bush's obfuscations, lies, deceptions, and perversions. Let 'em have it! Don't hold back! Show 'em all exactly how smart you are, and how just by sitting at home in your easy chair you can tell he's lying.
And tell them how he's totally washed up about Iraq, and that the journalists in their hotels have a much better handle on how things are really going on the ground, because the generals in charge of the troops have an agenda.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:53 pmNow we have people on the left screaming Bush Lied, Nazi, Fascist and whatever else you want and people on the right screaming MSM lies, Traitors, Cowards, and other euphemisms that void understanding of the issues that plague us in the 21st century.
Comment by nykrindc
Blow it out your ass, you apologist fool. We call them as we see them and that's what they are. If you don't like it, don't come back.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:54 pmThe Real Problem With Republicans: They Declared War on the U.S. Long Before They Declared War on Iraq.
Bingo, Ukenuke. The enemy is here among us. We will have to fight a two front war but we aren't incompetents like the fascist right. We always have to clean up their messes.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:58 pmBush lied? Nahhh, he was probably choking on another pretzel!
December 1st, 2005 at 6:04 pmWe here are not a judge and jury. There is no question that Bush has lied to the world. The result of his actions, lies among them, are the deaths of thousands of people. He needs to be impeached, then charged with crimes in the USA, and, finally, to face charges in international courts. After the courts have made their decisions. Once the courts have handed down sentences of "life" or "death" let gw and Karl Rove put their heads together and parse those two words.... for themselves.
December 1st, 2005 at 6:06 pmNykrindc:
infidel might have been a bit harsh, as you are new here.
We certainly don't want you to go away. Discussion is good.
That being said,...
December 1st, 2005 at 6:06 pmAgain, as you are new you have not experienced the DAILY vitriol that these trolls spew at us. They deflect, change the subject, and name call (which does in turn lead to the rest of us calling them names. Unfortunate, yes.)
Judging them on the whole of their MANY attacking posts, one does come to the conclusion that these people are indeed fascists. I belive this is the very first time I have used that word to describe them, but I cannot avoid it any longer.
They are truly hateful: against progressives, against anyone who might raise a question, ANYONE that does not fall in line with them.
Sorry for the long post. Please don't go away. Review other posts and you will see of what I speak.
Welcome.
I’m sorry,but could someone refresh my memory and tell me why we went to war with Iraq?Was it WMD,was it spreading democracy or was it to topple Saddam?Maybe you could clear this up i right i,since you seem to know so goddamned much about everything.How about it fatmouth,do you know or are you to busy trying to sort out all the lies too?Your world is collapsing extreme rightists and so is Bush’s,thanks to Mr MURTHA,who by the way is more of a man than The Chimp or i right i could ever hope to be.All hail Mr Murtha and may he have many long days and many pleasant nights!
Comment by MATT LAMBERT — December 1, 2005
We went to war with Iraq for a number of reasons. None of them good, moral, legal or just, nor even in our strategic best interests.
December 1st, 2005 at 6:07 pmScrew discussion. There is no discussion with the right. It's time to drown them in the sewer, not the bathtub.
December 1st, 2005 at 6:08 pmOh I forgot that too!
Tell all your friends and neighbors how you think Bush and Rove should be impounded and impeached, prosecuted and electrocuted for their actions.
I know I'm gonna tell 'em all. I'm a liberal and I'm smarter than 52% of the country and I'm proud of it.
December 1st, 2005 at 6:11 pmBut see #387, infidel,
December 1st, 2005 at 6:12 pmThat makes us bad as them,
and we are not.
But see #387, infidel,
That makes us bad as them,
and we are not.
Comment by True Blue
You are an idealist with rose colored glasses on. Politics is bloodsport and I intend to survive. Not only survive, but conquer and eliminate my political enemies, be they Islamic terrorists, corporate scumbags, or right wing fascist bastards, I intend to crush them under my boots. You are a fool.
December 1st, 2005 at 6:16 pmWhat the hell is wrong with this anyway Think Progress? Why do you want us and the Iraqis to lose and suck in Iraq?
Mmmmmmm…Kool-Aid
Comment by bootz —
Good question. The short answer is they hate themselves.
At the core of modern liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.
~ Buckwheat
Clearly, little has changed among the American left since it ascended to prominence during the Vietnam era. Back then, brutality was not personified by the genocide of the Soviets, the Communist Khmer Rouge and their Killing Fields, nor the wanton slaughter of Vietnamese by the millions in the wake of the U.S. departure from that nation. Rather, it was singularly characterized by Lieutenant William Calley and the My Lai massacre. Now, to hear it from liberals, 9-11 was little more than a historical fluke to which the best response may well be indifference. Furthermore, the ensuing terror war has been a singular violation of human rights, defined not by the toppling of indescribable tyrants, but by a few terrorist inmates who were forced to play “dog pile†at the hands of some admittedly perverted U.S. prison guards…. During World War II, it was through the likes of “Tokyo Rose†that America’s mortal enemies worked to undermine troop morale and destroy its will to continue the fight. But the mouthpieces of militant Islam need not engage in such efforts, since the American left has accepted the responsibility to wage this facet of the war on the home front.â€
December 1st, 2005 at 6:17 pmhttp://www.opinioneditorials.com/ guestcontributors/ cadamo_20051124.html
Infidel, call me on my cell.
I'll pick you up and we can both canvass our neighbors together.
Together, We'll tell them how compassionate and sensitive we are. Because we're liberals.
December 1st, 2005 at 6:24 pmI don't see the story here. It's no surprise that the Iraqi units were led and advised by Green Berets. That what they do. We made the plan up, no surprise. They have been telling us for a while now that we would do the planning and leading, the Iraqis would do the fighting. Notice that he said the Iraqi units were on the frontline, thats encouraging. I hate to say it but I don't see the balfaced lie that you all do, I see george glossing over facts but not liying. Now what would be intresting is if the numbers of battalions that george claims were there is incorrect. Now that would be a lie.
December 1st, 2005 at 6:26 pmAre you sure you're not a troll?
Sounds like troll-speak to me.
See, us liberals believe in PEACE, not "CRUSHING" anyone.
Calm down. We'll get them. They'll hang themselves.
December 1st, 2005 at 6:26 pmI'm a Veteran (Infantry Hospital Corpsman, USMC/USN) and a songwriter opposed to Bush's war. I wrote "BushWhacked" last week and I have received an incredible response from Soldiers, Families and a even a few angry Bush "co-conspirators". This is a powerful Song/Montage! Feel free share this presentation.
http://www.tomsongs.com/images/Bushwhacked.wmv
BushWhacked
I served my time far away from the front lines
But I’ve seen them come and I’ve seen them go
Bullets fly when politicians lie and soldiers die that’s war
Their fathers and mothers wake up crying in the middle of the night
Their hearts jump at every knock upon the door
Young Americans bleeding and dying in the middle of this fight
Still trying to figure out what the hell they’re really dying for
Bushwhacked and another soldier dies
They’ve been Bushwhacked
By a whitehouse war built on whitehouse lies
Bushwhacked
And by the time we realize we’ve all been Bushwhacked
Another roadside bomb another soldier dies
If you close your eyes force yourself to look inside
Read between the whitehouse lies that we’ve all been fed
In the name of humanity they peddled our democracy
Claim they’re trying to set Iraqis free
So far we’ve freed a hundred thousand dead
And their fathers and mothers wake up crying in the middle of the night
Their hearts jump with every knock upon the door
Soldiers and civilians bleeding and dying in the middle of this fight
Still trying to figure out what they’re really dying for
They’ve been Bushwhacked and another soldier dies
December 1st, 2005 at 6:28 pmThey’ve been Bushwhacked
By a whitehouse war built on whitehouse lies
Bushwhacked
And by the time we realize we’ve all been Bushwhacked
Another roadside bomb another soldier dies
Bushwhacked and another soldier dies
They’ve been Bushwhacked
By a whitehouse war built on whitehouse lies
Bushwhacked
And we’re gonna lose a thousand more
Yeah we’ve been Bushwhacked
Maybe George should fight his own bullshit war
Okay, does anybody think that what the President said means that US forces were taking orders from Iraqi forces? Anybody that dumb? It means that the forces kicking in the doors and clearing the rooms were primarily Iraqi, which is a huge freaking step from a year ago. God you blameocrats are morons.
December 1st, 2005 at 6:28 pm#394 meant for infidel.
December 1st, 2005 at 6:28 pmSorry.
Progs waving a copy of TIME magazine (Ted Turner's favourite magazine!!!)is akin to Ramsey Clark waving a copy of Pravda....I wouldn't wrap fish in either one - they might stink up the fish.
December 1st, 2005 at 6:30 pmWhat is it, the Troll Shift - Change, MA?
December 1st, 2005 at 6:33 pmTime for NEW crap, everyone!!!
Are you sure you’re not a troll?
Sounds like troll-speak to me.
See, us liberals believe in PEACE, not “CRUSHING†anyone.
Calm down. We’ll get them. They’ll hang themselves.
Comment by True Blue — December 1, 2005 @ 6:26 pm
You are an idealistic, naive fool. There is no "better than them" unless you win. To the victor go the spoils. If you want to be relegated to the back pages of history, fine, but don't pretend to speak for all liberals. You don't. And they do not speak for any true conservatives or Republicans deserving of the name. Crushing them is the plan. If it doesn't suit you, fine, but don't tell the rest of us to turn the other cheek. I don't happen to be a Christian and I intend to bury this crop of psuedo-conservatives in their own bullshit. Permanently.
December 1st, 2005 at 6:33 pmI'd rather be that than full of the hatred you are spewing.....
just like the trolls, only the other side of the spectrum.
(I'm not Christian, either...)
December 1st, 2005 at 6:37 pmwow, what a lovely discussion.
we (which no longer just includes those from the left) say bush lied.
one of the most common responses from righties: it's Clinton's fault! Clinton lied!
So, what does that mean? Clinton taught Bush how to lie? The fact that Clinton lied (which he did, let's be honest here) is actually a piss poor excuse. Republicans have been using Clinton as a crutch FOR OVER 13 YEARS.
When do you actually start to take accountability? Is there a 15 year time limit on accountability no one told me about?
Let me just ask anyone here: have you ever used that excuse personally? If someone accused you of lying, would you say, "So what. Clinton lied."?
If someone accused you of ANYTHING, would you use Clinton as the standard? Because that's what you do for Bush when you say "Clinton lied" - you make him the standard for Bush.
Well let me just say, if Clinton is the standard for Bush, THEN BUSH IS FAILING MISERABLY. I never even voted for Clinton, but holy crap would I take him back in a second. As an American living abroad, I can tell you this: we have lost respect in the world directly as a result of Bush policies -- very alarmingly so.
I just wonder when that final 35% of Bush supporters will realize he's actually tearing the republican party apart. He's no true conservative; he's tied his entire success to christian fundamentalists. He'll be quite happy to spend this country into oblivion if it means the result is christian dominance not just in America, but throughout the world. My father, who is a true conservative, just declared to me 2 months ago: 'I guess I'll be voting Democrat until we get this mess fixed.'
This is how much of a joke these guys are... my father -- who still owns a truck with a Reagan/Bush sticker on it, who I could never have fathomed would EVER vote Democrat -- will be voting Democrat.
Republicans: stupid is as stupid does. GW Bush has been a disaster for America and the world. Please start acting like real republicans again so we can heal the rifts and pull ourselves out of this hole Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, have gotten us into.
And sooner rather than later would be nice- we really are getting dangerously close to the breaking point as a nation.
December 1st, 2005 at 6:42 pmIt's been a requirement that an American President be a War Criminal since Ronald Reagan was in office. Yes, even Bill Clinton lobbed bombs on innocent civilians from Sudan to Iraq. Clinton also left piles of Radioactive Munitions in the former Yugoslavia.
Right now, we, the American people are responsible for planting Uranium Munitions in Iraq mixed with the blood of innocent civilians and fertilized with Phosphorus Chemical weapons. When Saddam used Phophorus against his own people, we called him a war criminal then we quickly absolved him because he was our War Criminal.
When Bush says that God told him to Invade Iraq, he's wrong. He's listening to a voice from the other end of the Spiritual spectrum. Who else but the Devil delights in the suffering that our "Christian" leader brings to the world.
Jesus Christ has a special place reserved in Hell for people that use his name to do the Devil's work.
Hitler had belt buckles made for the entire German Army that said "God is with us"
December 1st, 2005 at 6:44 pm#396, Then what were the American soldiers doing when they are seen on film every night knocking down doors in the middle of the night?
December 1st, 2005 at 6:44 pmOne of Kerry's points made after Bush's captive-audience speech yesterday was that the cultural and language barriers, are precisely the reason why those searches should be done by Iraqis and they are not. Do you read, watch the news or do you just hear with Fox or Limbaugh tell you?
I stumbled across this site by accident and read most of the posts here. I would like to share some of my thoughts on this. I am a soldier serving in Iraq. I fought in Tal Afar in September. I take nothing away from Mr. Ware, but I would like to add my own comments on this. Yes, there were american advisors attached to the Iraqi Army Battalions serving in Tal Afar. There were also Special Police Commando units there, without american advisors. American advisors help prevent friendly fire and human rights abuses, and are by and large a good thing. Most of the abuses you hear about on the iraqi's end is by the police units, who do not have US advisors. Yes, advisors were present. But I will tell you that the Iraqis there in Tal Afar fought well against a determined enemy. They were able to do their job despite the deaths of tactical leaders and conducted themselves professionally. The US units in the battle were largely comprised of tanks and lighter armored vehicles. Almost all of the house to house engagement, the real work of any urban battle, was done by the iraqis. The battle was a series of smaller operations linked together. I was present for the planning of one phase of the operation and will tell you that the US and Iraqi commanders jointly planned the operation. I think it's strange to suggest the president lied on this issue. The iraqi army by and large deserves the credit for this one. To say otherwise is looking for an excuse to further your own agenda. If you were there for any stage of planning or participated in the battle itself and disagree with what I said I highly encourage you to respond.
December 1st, 2005 at 6:49 pmDoes this qualify Bush as a Pathological Liar?
December 1st, 2005 at 7:00 pmOT, but have you guys noticed that the Republicans who show up on things like this only have about four things to say?
1) They restate the lie, thinking that maybe if we hear it again, we'll believe it just like they do, usually throwing in some mild peer pressure [#6]
2) When that doesn't work, the peer pressure gets turned up (i.e. "You hate America, you don't support the troops, etc.). [#24]
3.) When we still don't believe the lie, they're forced to guess at who we hold in highest esteem and then attack that person in the same way they see the person they hold in highest esteem being attacked. [#50]
They'll usually repeat variations of the first three long enough to drive away their less invested "enemies" (translation: Most people get tired of talking to them and stop).
4.) Finally, when they run out of talking points and are forced to accept that no matter what they do, they can't make a lie into the truth for people who don't already want to believe it, they resort to hysterical namecalling. [#391]
Conversing with antagonistic Republicans only feeds their psychosis. Don't do it. Maybe we can save their half of the country before they get us all killed.
December 1st, 2005 at 7:04 pmI just stumbled across this site. Wow, I just came across this site. First time I've been to this site. I'm new to this site. Lookey here what I've found!
What are you selling ? We're not buying.
December 1st, 2005 at 7:07 pmSubject: For the record...
George Bush...
* Started an ill-timed and disastrous war under false pretenses by lying to the American people and to Congress.
* Has run a budget surplus into a severe deficit.
* Has consistently and unconscionably favored the wealthy and corporations over the rights and needs of the general population.
* Has destroyed trust and confidence in and good will toward the United States around the globe.
* Has ignored global warming, to the world's detriment.
* Has wantonly broken our treaty obligations.
* Has condoned torture of prisoners.
* Has attempted to create a theocracy in the United States.
* Has appointed incompetent cronies to position of vital national importance.
Would someone please give him a blow job so we can impeach him?
December 1st, 2005 at 7:18 pmSorry I'm late. Of course Bushie lied, thats what he does. I wonder why Bushie's God is always telling him to lie.
Is Bushies God a liar too?
It's great to see MSM reporting the blatant lies.
Score another one for the good guys.
December 1st, 2005 at 7:28 pmWe went to war with Iraq for a number of reasons. All of them good, moral, legal, just, and in our strategic best interests.
December 1st, 2005 at 7:30 pmCan't argue with that, wwallace. I think many people feel it is strategically an experiment. And it's expensive. And it involves people that Americans don't really identify with in any practical way. It's not sustainable either, it seems. Ho hum.
December 1st, 2005 at 7:34 pmOh yeah, many like myself think it will just polarize terrorists. And THEY sure as hell ain't going anywhere. Oh well.
Geee Wally, you sure are stupid.Kinda sorta.
December 1st, 2005 at 7:36 pmWhat a Wally!
December 1st, 2005 at 7:49 pmBushes middle name is LIAR. Is there anything he says not a lie? I'm just hoping one day someone comes out on national TV and finally calls him a liar. I don't understand why everyone is affraid to do so.
December 1st, 2005 at 7:54 pmGot to love the Rendonites...
December 1st, 2005 at 7:55 pmNevetheless, the Man is simply incapable of lying.
December 1st, 2005 at 8:05 pmBush has been lying for 6 years to the american people and yet they but him back in office, we get what we pay for.And he gonna lie he way out of office and we are gonna be in deep crap unless the democrates grows some balls and stop him and his yes men and women somehow.
December 1st, 2005 at 8:10 pmDennis is lying. Bush didn't lie.
December 1st, 2005 at 8:13 pm#343 !! Absolute GENIUS ! I couldn't agree more - if these people are so damn proud of the war, and enlistment is down, why don't they go enlist? Why don't they go "fight" ? Go drive your damn Hummer or Ford Excursion down to the enlistment office. Or better yet, just go to a high school in a poor neighborhood. There are plenty of recruiting officers there. GOARMY.COM Beautiful....
December 1st, 2005 at 8:25 pmWhat are you doing on the computer, wwalace??? They need you over there in Iraq! Surely you don't want someone else to die for your beliefs. Get your ass over there.
December 1st, 2005 at 8:25 pmYes, Bush lied, lies, lied, lies etc....
December 1st, 2005 at 8:26 pm#91 Ben, Ben, Ben you contradict yourself. In your initial post to someone you say this: "You have no idea about the troops. I know people serving and I read from various sources that tell a much different story. All you are doing is following the talking points of the antiwar crowd. Just make false statements and make them often is the their strategy. Most of the troops know the mission, know the truth, and do not like the way that it is being distorted by the MSM." Then, Ben, in a rebuttal to someone else who commented on what you said, you say this: "There are soldiers in support of the war, and there are soldiers against it … trying to prove which side is right by claiming that the “soldiers†agree with them makes zero sense" hmmmm, Ben, so you use the soldiers by saying "most of them know the mission", then later its "some troops support some troops don't trying to prove which side is right makes zero sense" hmmm? change of heart? Have you no sense? which is it, your comments waffle, flippity floppity
December 1st, 2005 at 8:31 pmcj, you don't know where I am.
December 1st, 2005 at 8:36 pmYes, larry lied, lies, lied, lies etc….
December 1st, 2005 at 8:37 pmTo all who aren't brainwashed {that means who aren't neocons} you seem to be waisting your time trying to talk sence to these bloodyhanded people . They look at their prodigal son as if he is the Chicago Cubs , { no offence to Cubs fans } they just wont give up no matter what in believing , their pride and ego wont let them admit they could be this wrong . Remember Bush got most of his votes from people who think Jesus wants them to pick up rattlesnakes . In a way I think they have , and they got bit .
December 1st, 2005 at 8:44 pmYep, wwalace. No clue where you are. If you're in Iraq, I hope you're safe. If not, then get over there. Me, I'm sitting comfortably in Phoenix Arizona worrying about the safety of my children.
December 1st, 2005 at 8:45 pmgee Wally,
who made you the president's little waif?
good, moral, legal, just, and in our strategic best interests? what?
the majority of those good, moral, legal or just reasons have turned out to be FALSE. even the administration admits that - they just blame 'bad intelligence'.
is it moral or good to send troops into battle without proper protection? how about to fail to then plan properly to get those troops out of battle?
is it legal or just to not have a clear definition of what 'torture' is? how about the further attempt to obtain an exemption from torture rules for the CIA? the international community is certainly not seeing it that way.
is it in our strategic best interests to not be able to respond effectively to a real crisis (such as a hurricane destroying an american city, or china overrunning taiwan, or north korea bombing seoul into the stone ages)? Because i assure you if any other significant -- and REAL -- threat to the u.s. comes up, we're royally screwed. we won't have allies, we'll have an exhausted, depleted army, and a polarized public. And probably a draft.
But hey, that draft isn't a bad idea -- maybe it'll get those that are 'too good' for military service to be able to see the difference between a war of purpose and a war of choice. i'll bet no rich-asses or yellow elephants will want to see their kids going off to fight another fake war over anything but actual national security from that moment forward.
but hey, you seem to have the president's ear. you must be one of those strong women i hear he's surrounding himself with these days.
December 1st, 2005 at 8:46 pmRex is misrepresenting the facts, undermining American troops.
December 1st, 2005 at 8:51 pmReply to post 405. Yeah thats how I thought it worked. They did the heavy lifting and we did the support and command. Good point on how advisers help to prevent friendly fire and war crimes. Also they don't have any APC's or tanks so we would have to help with that and in combat you need those big armoured guns for support.
December 1st, 2005 at 8:51 pmQuestion though, who handled the medical side of it? Probably a joint effort again.
#430, #405 Pure FICTION. Try and get a little creative with the screen names next time.
December 1st, 2005 at 8:55 pm#429
'misrepresenting the facts, undermining American troops.'
Comment by wwallace — December 1, 2005 @ 8:51 pm
gee wally,
this is what cheney must sound like when he talks in his sleep. i'm sure it drives his wife nuts! that is, if he actually allows her in his undisclosed bunker.
so you've proven you can just cut n' paste the administration's boiler plate. good effort! with such a high level of competence, you could work for them.
December 1st, 2005 at 9:06 pmI only read the first 120 posts, and noticed that nobody mentioned another bush lie (there's an infinite number, but lets refer to his speech). He said, and I can't cite his exact words, that the vast majority of suicide bombers came from outside iraq. A bald faced lie. The military tried that a while ago, and when pressed for specifics they admitted that they had none. An investigation showed that something like 90% of them are iraqis.
December 1st, 2005 at 9:07 pmWith the exception of a few of you here, the rest are just as bad as the right-wingers they criticize so much. Many of the comments reflect an absolutist view of events that's in par with the manner in which the neo-cons interpret the world. Tyrannies exists on both sides of the spectrum and many of those here who fall into the absolutist category would fit right in into either one depending on their ideological outlook.
As for Johnny, the soldier. If what you say is true, and being that the internet is such an anonymous place where it is hard to verify information, then it seems that Bush while not lying may have glossed over a few facts. You sound sincere and honest, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt, even if others do not. The issue that many people have, myself included, with what the President might have done, is that time and again, the administration has glossed over specific facts (i.e. we have trained 210,000 Iraqi troops) only to recant it later once the media reported that of those 210,000 only 30,000 were considered battle ready. This is not an actual example but one that closely resembles some of what the administration has done. It is not outright lying, but when progress has been made (like you point out, Iraqis did not cut and run, they fought well and did alot of the hard work)why does the administration feel the need to fudge the facts a bit to make itself look better? I mean, I understand that well, it wants to make itself look good, but most of the time stretching the truth hurts more than helps. If there has been progress they should just state where and how and do it honestly so that Americans don't come away with high expectations for success when the facts do not bear them out. That is part of the reason why the President has been losing support for this war, because he has refused to be direct and honest with Americans about the failures or successes we have had.
December 1st, 2005 at 9:09 pm"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
Go Back To The Beginning and Follow the Steps Again
-George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
1992 First Hints of a Preemption Strategy
Paul Wolfowitz, under secretary of defense for policy (the Pentagon's third-highest ranking civilian),
December 1st, 2005 at 9:11 pmtakes the lead in drafting an internal set of military guidelines, called a "Defense Planning Guidance,"
which is routinely prepared every few years by the Defense Department.
Wolfowitz's draft argues for a new military and political strategy in a post-Cold War world. Containment,
it says, is a relic of the Cold War. America should talk loudly, carry a big stick, and use its military
power to preempt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). And if America has to act alone, so be it.
(Read excerpts from the Wolfowitz draft.)
Controversy erupts after the draft is leaked to the press. The White House orders Defense Secretary Cheney to
rewrite it. In the new draft there is no mention of preemption or U.S. willingness to act alone.
From the Lynne Cheney Thread:
I wrote:
You know what a “Wally†is in New Zealand slang?
A buffoon, idiot, dullard, etc.
Every time he posts, we should all respond:
“What a Wally!â€
Comment by True Blue — December 1, 2005 @ 5:35 pm
Again people,
December 1st, 2005 at 9:29 pmIt worked on the last post............... it'll do here...."WHAT A WALLY!!!!"
To be able to witness one grand collapse of Republican arrogance (watergate) in a lifetime was a gift, but to be able to witness a second one next year... there must be a God.
December 1st, 2005 at 9:32 pmHowever, what is going to happen to us during the remaining 2-3 years of the Hastert Administration?
#423 sm -
I think you have me confused with Giacomo post #91.
December 1st, 2005 at 9:38 pm#411 Do you do stand up, wally? You should you are hilarious..
December 1st, 2005 at 9:39 pmThe only progress in the two battles; Tal Afar and Fallujah is, in Fallujah U.S troops used white phosphorous chemical weapons(which melts skin right off the bones) and in Tal Afar the troops didn't. Michael Ware, in his reporting of a menu of weapons used in Tal Afar didnt mention the use of this illegal weapon of mass distruction
Bush lied and soldiers keep dying
December 1st, 2005 at 9:43 pm2114 u.s military fatalities
15,568 u.s military Maimed in Iraq
30,789 Iraqis REPORTED killed many by having the skin burned off by white phosphorous chemicals
To R I R S yes there is God , and he spoke ofter about social justice , and that is something are president dosen't consider . His priorities lie in corporate payoffs and freaky religious ideology .
December 1st, 2005 at 9:46 pmAll you bush defenders - Nobody wants to diminish the accomplishments of the Iraqis. I'd say progress has been made since last year as far as a rebuilt Iraqi military is concerned. It was at rock bottom, fer cryin out loud, and had no room to get worse. Bravo for progress. But once again, bush just can't tell it like it is. He's got overstate, exagerage, and present a warped view of reality. He didn't say "We're coming along". He said they led the attack! That's just not so - unless you're standing on your head. They participated, alright?! I'd say our situation would improve rapidly if all you folks who nit pick the criticism of bush stopped and looked at the big, ugly picture here. Time for you all to demand truth and real accountablity from this administration.
December 1st, 2005 at 9:46 pmMe, White phosphorus is neither illegal nor a weapon of mass destruction. Are there any liberals who visit or work for this website who are capable of ever telling the truth?
December 1st, 2005 at 9:47 pmMichDem, President Bush is responsible for liberating 50 million people from tyranny in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's quite a bit of social justice.
December 1st, 2005 at 9:49 pmTo Blueinredstate sorry typo
December 1st, 2005 at 9:50 pmWallace you're dreaming and I'm not going to argue the odvious with you , so talk to someone else OK
December 1st, 2005 at 9:52 pmMichDem, you're dreaming. You're not going to argue the truth with me, all you have are lies. You obviously favor the other side in the war.
December 1st, 2005 at 9:54 pm444
MichDem, President Bush is responsible for liberating 50 million people from tyranny in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s quite a bit of social justice.
You meant "Liberated from clean water, electricity, security, precious loved ones, jobs, and cars that don't blow up."
From all the polls I've read, the Iraqis don't share your gratitude.
December 1st, 2005 at 9:54 pmWow that's a new one , you got me , questioning my patriatism . Why are you afraid of truth , do you somewhat takes some blame in these crimes against humanity for being fooled by the devil .
December 1st, 2005 at 9:59 pmHey frED I think that wallaces mom made him go to bed
December 1st, 2005 at 10:04 pm"WHAT A WALLY!"
Can't stay up to play with the BIG boys....
December 1st, 2005 at 10:14 pmTrue Blue I guess we couldn't dumb it down enough for 'em , that sucks I didn't even roll up my sleaves yet , that god I know some of these self indulging swines to get my debate fix on LMAO
December 1st, 2005 at 10:17 pmLike an old Marine once told me:
"If you can't run with the big dogs, then stay on the porch!"
December 1st, 2005 at 10:18 pmJohnny, you were in Tal Afar? And you stumbled across this site regarding bush's comments on Tal Afar? Wow Anyway, You are one soldier as Ware is one journalist. That I am keeping in mind. bush has lied many times, people have no reason to believe him regarding much of anything, he really has lost the trust of the majority of Americans and sad to say many in other countries. And the propoganda of Fox news is churning at a fast and furious pace these days to cover the outrageous comments and actions by this administration. But thanks for your interpretation on this issue. On one comment you made... "Almost all of the house to house engagement, the real work of any urban battle, was done by the Iraqis. The battle was a series of smaller operations linked together." This in itself seems like ground soldiers who are taking orders more than leading" though I'm not saying that was the case just wondering? Also when you say "Most of the abuses you hear about on the iraqi’s end is by the police units, who do not have US advisors." This isn't real encouraging because you wonder if we are not there can they sustain control?" And also you said, "I was present for the planning of one phase of the operation and will tell you that the US and Iraqi commanders jointly planned the operation." Are you at a level where you are included in planning operations or was it a flukey opportunity that you got to be present for the planning of this phase of operatioon? And just out of curiousity, were you actually yourself actively involved in the planning or just present to observe? On the planning, was it equal contribution in planning? or did we do more or did the Iraqis do more of the planning and decision making? Who's supplies and resources were used? It is mostly ours? Anyway, I don't believe a word bush says but certainly do not want to see any more Iraqis or Americans continue to die so whatever can be done to end this mess will be good, if we can. How do you suppose peace will be kept in a region that has thousands of years of cultural difference, political difference and a history of fighting among themselves, much of it today based on interference by outside countries in previous years? Then there's the physical destruction of the country's buildings, resources and business's, and civilian areas that has now occurred and what about our (and other countries) need and dependancy to access the oil reserves in Iraq. Seems to me we'd have a long way to go for progress to be meaningful. The Soldiers themselves in Iraq who are doing what their service tells them to do are not diminished because of failures of their adminstration. And in my opinion any good that is done there is done by the soldiers, not bush and Co. Stay safe.
December 1st, 2005 at 10:20 pmThat's right frEd, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a real paradise, as long as you stayed away from the wood-chippers and the rape rooms, you lunatic.
December 1st, 2005 at 10:21 pmsm has lied many times. Bush has not lied.
December 1st, 2005 at 10:22 pmMichDem, you lack of patriotism is not in question, it's obvious.
December 1st, 2005 at 10:23 pmOutstanding sm
December 1st, 2005 at 10:24 pm#438 #423 sm -
I think you have me confused with Giacomo post #91.
Comment by Ben — December 1, 2005 @ 9:38 pm
Ben, by jove I think you are right! so can I thank Giacomo for a rebuttal of sorts on your comment then?
December 1st, 2005 at 10:28 pmWally , what is obvious is your lack of factual basis . Do you even know what that means . You have blood on your hands even though you are a chickenhawk . I have an idea , why don't you either join the army and save some National Guardsmans live so he can be here in america doing his job . Or you can go listen to some other fundamentalest at some redneck church and pick up a rattlesnake , either way you'll actually be doing a service to your country .
December 1st, 2005 at 10:32 pmPatriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. http://www.samueljohnson.com/qotw02q2.html#0630
December 1st, 2005 at 10:32 pm#456
December 1st, 2005 at 10:35 pmWally butt out and yes, sorry bush has lied. many times! sorry for us all!
sm Wally holds on to bush the way some morons are holding on to Terrell Owens on their fantacy football team .
December 1st, 2005 at 10:39 pmI used to do this with the Dole and newt people . I have to admit it was a closer fight . They were selfserving all the same but not quite as dumb .
December 1st, 2005 at 10:43 pmMichDem is a chickendove who wants America to lose the war on terror.
December 1st, 2005 at 10:47 pmsm has lied many times. President Bush has not lied.
December 1st, 2005 at 10:48 pmGee, Wally,
Maybe you shouldn't say that junk and stuff......
You might hurt their feelings...........
December 1st, 2005 at 10:50 pmMichDem, I've never seen such blind ignorance as I have from some of the neocons on this site. It's uncanny! It's just what bush and Co have hoped for all along. I can see them wringing their hands and drooling in joy. But thankfully, (sincerely thankful about this,) many people are tuning out Fox (the 'divider' and antagonistic faux news station), and are reading books, reading articles, checking up on current history, digging for facts and paying attention. The neocon numbers are dwindling and perhaps we can get back on the road to what a real democracy is. I hope its not too late.
December 1st, 2005 at 10:52 pmGee, Wally,
Didn't Pres Bush say that there was wmds and stuff there, and we oughta go and clean it up?
....
But,......
Gee, Wally,
We didn't find nothin' over there..........
so, like, why are we there then, Wally?
December 1st, 2005 at 10:53 pmThe differrence between repugs and dems is quite simple . Repugs believe you build from the infrastructure in , and dems believe you start on the outside and work your way in . We all know what works best , these repugs are either not paying attention or they are on lower plain of intellect . Anyway goodnight all , fight the good fight and in the words of yet another stupid repug " I'll be back " on think progress , I promiss .
December 1st, 2005 at 10:53 pm#456 #466 Gee Wally I think your repeating yourself again, did you learn that from bush and co.? Repeat things enough and people will believe anything you say? (Well, the dumb people anyway)
December 1st, 2005 at 10:55 pmGeez, sm,
He's such a
WALLY
sometimes, huh?............
December 1st, 2005 at 10:59 pm#472 Yeah, the Beav is way smarter and he's younger.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:02 pmwwallace/295:
Thank you for posting this nonsense that had been flooding the internet.
1998 comments:
When Clinton and members of his administration made these claims, Republicans called it "wagging the dog" and impeached him.
If Republicans did not believe Clinton & company in 1998, please explain how that justifies an invasion in 2003. If Republicans did not believe these things in 1998, please explain why it is not hypocritical to quote them now.
If they did believe Clinton & co. in 1998, they committed treason for impeaching Clinton when he was preparing to take action against Iraq.
So: are Republicans traitors, or just hypocrites?
2002-2003 comments:
these just show that Democrats believed Bush's lies. Which administration supplied the "intelligence" and reports that they relied on in making these claims? Why are the victims of a con game at fault for being conned?
If you think the victims of a con are to blame, try this simple experiment:
1. Go into a building.
2. Pull the fire alarm.
3. Watch as the fire marshals round everybody up. Watch as they leave. Listen to what they say.
4. When you get hauled into court, blame the victims. Argue that it's the fault of those that believed the information that they got.
Let us know how you do.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:03 pmWhackoWallace, your own trolls disagree with you. MizzWrong said bush lied when he called Islam - 'the religion of peace', are you saying MizzWrong and the other trolls lied? Did you hear that MizzWrong, Whacko Wallace says you and the rest of republican christians are liars! But since wwallace is jewish, does that mean he's one of the jews you like, or one of the ones you hate MizzWrong?
Republicans are such schizophrenic freaks...
December 1st, 2005 at 11:15 pmLet us know how you do.
Comment by Bubba Ram Dos — December 1, 2005 @ 11:03 pm
Bubba,
Here at Think Progress we have gone beyond debunking those quotes. We have all contributed to deconstruct those quotes many times over, but wwallace keeps pasting them in random threads.
Don't waste your time and effort on him. I completely expect him to call me a liar as soon as he reads this post. Personally, I suspect he lives in a parallel reality. After all, he said this:
What utter nonsense. The 9/11 Commission report is a joke.
Comment by wwallace — November 27, 2005 @ 3:14 pm
He doesn't think the 9/11 Commission report has any credibility. But then, I haven't been able to get from him an authoritative source that refutes the report's conclusions. wwallace is a true believer.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:16 pmYEA!!
Welcome back, Ryan!!!!!
Missed you this PM......
but did come up with a decent troll repellent.
(the beaver, New Zealand definition of a "Wally")
Go get 'em, Ryan!
December 1st, 2005 at 11:21 pm"Don't make me angry.
You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."
- David Banner
:') Ryan...
It's funny, that's what my kid says about me when I get mad...whoopsie...!
December 1st, 2005 at 11:29 pmShe's why I was gone for a while, she had another seizure...
But, I'm back!
Nice to see you back as well.
Wwallace-
Don't you just hate it when you and the other trolls keep giving out gobbelygook and it doesn't make sense. Go back to bed, son, your mama's calling.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:31 pm[...] Think Progress » Embedded TIME Reporter: Bush Lied In Speech Yesterday About Iraqi Security Forces Yesterday, President Bush claimed that Iraqi security forces “primarily led†the assault on the city of Tal Afar. Bush highlighted it as an “especially clear†sign of the progress Iraq security forces were making in Iraq. [...]
December 1st, 2005 at 11:37 pm"That’s right frEd, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a real paradise, as long as you stayed away from the wood-chippers and the rape rooms, you lunatic.
Comment by wwallace"
What the fvck? Who said saddam was a nice guy, or iraq was a picnic? I'm sure the folks in Darfur might disagree with you about the quality of life in Iraq, I guess it's all relative unless you're a republican propagandist retarded republican.
Funny how Iraqis actually believe that things are WORSE now than Saddam, and unlike you (the MonkeyBoyRetard), being iraqi THEY WOULD KNOW.
• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.
December 2nd, 2005 at 12:00 amRyan, I would like to see where you received those poll numbers. I am curious. Joe Lieberman just returned from Iraq and had this to say in his op-ed for the Wall Street Journal: "While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today." If you have a source for your numbers though, then great, but till then I must be skeptical.
December 2nd, 2005 at 12:07 am476/Gregor Samsa
Thanks, but don't worry; that post took no effort at all.
These people deceive about everything. We get bogged down in arguing about the details and trying to disprove their claims. I have found that the best way to deal with this is not to challenge the details, but to challenge the general theory, which is what I did. Also, make them prove their claims rather than trying to disprove them. Ask for sources. Ask for links. When they say "some people say", etc., ask them to name five. They never can. If they say "everybody knows", etc., tell them that in that case they ought to be able to find a link to support their claim. Challenge straw men. Don't let them distract you. In short, make them pay when they pull this Fox News crap.
Their four most common tricks:
1. Deny. Deny that something happened at all.
2. Dispute. When it is proven that something did happen, dispute the details. Try to find a single error and claim that this disproves the whole thing. Try to find a single example and say it proves their claim.
3. Distract. It's all Bill Clinton's fault. Everything. All the time. Forever.
4. Demean. When all else fails, insult.
I'm always glad to have a serious conversation with people that disagree with me. I never learned anything from people that agree with me. But it offends me when people uncritically post nonsense that was put together for the specific purpose of deceiving people.
I notice Wallace hasn't responded.
December 2nd, 2005 at 12:18 amIf you have a source for your numbers though, then great, but till then I must be skeptical.
Comment by mnjosh — December 2, 2005 @ 12:07 am
I have no clue where Lieberman got those numbers. The figures Ryan quoted were published at the end of October by the Daily Telegraph:
"The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.
Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/23/ixworld.html
Given that the situation has not changed much since then, I very much doubt the numbers have improved in any significant way.
I am always suspicious of the op-ed pages in the Wall Street Journal -they usually contradict what you read in the rest of the newspaper. Not to mention they were big advocates of the invasion.
December 2nd, 2005 at 12:44 amHoward Roberts
A Seven-point plan for an Exit Strategy in Iraq
1) A timetable for the complete withdrawal of American and British forces must be announced.
I envision the following procedure, but suitable fine-tuning can be applied by all the people involved.
A) A ceasefire should be offered by the Occupying side to representatives of both the Sunni insurgency and the Shiite community. These representatives would be promised safe passage, to any meetings. The individual insurgency groups would designate who would attend.
At this meeting a written document declaring a one-month ceasefire, witnessed by a United Nations authority, will be fashioned and eventually signed. This document will be released in full, to all Iraqi newspapers, the foreign press, and the Internet.
B) US and British command will make public its withdrawal, within sixth-months of 80 % of their troops.
C) Every month, a team of United Nations observers will verify the effectiveness of the ceasefire.
All incidences on both sides will be reported.
D) Combined representative armed forces of both the Occupying nations and the insurgency organizations that agreed to the cease fire will protect the Iraqi people from actions by terrorist cells.
E) Combined representative armed forces from both the Occupying nations and the insurgency organizations will begin creating a new military and police force. Those who served, with out extenuating circumstances, in the previous Iraqi military or police, will be given the first option to serve.
F) After the second month of the ceasefire, and thereafter, in increments of 10-20% ,a total of 80% will be withdrawn, to enclaves in Qatar and Bahrain. The governments of these countries will work out a temporary land-lease housing arrangement for these troops. During the time the troops will be in these countries they will not stand down, and can be re-activated in the theater, if both the chain of the command still in Iraq, the newly formed Iraqi military, the leaders of the insurgency, and two international ombudsman (one from the Arab League, One from the United Nations), as a majority, deem it necessary.
G) One-half of those troops in enclaves will leave three-months after they arrive, for the United States or other locations, not including Iraq.
H) The other half of the troops in enclaves will leave after six-months.
I) The remaining 20 % of the Occupying troops will, during this six month interval, be used as peace-keepers, and will work with all the designated organizations, to aid in reconstruction and nation-building.
J) After four months they will be moved to enclaves in the above-mentioned countries.
They will remain, still active, for two month, until their return to the States, Britain and the other involved nations.
2) At the beginning of this period the United States will file a letter with the Secretary General of the Security Council of the United Nations, making null and void all written and proscribed orders by the CPA, under R. Paul Bremer. This will be announced and duly noted.
3) At the beginning of this period all contracts signed by foreign countries will be considered in abeyance until a system of fair bidding, by both Iraqi and foreign countries, will be implemented ,by an interim Productivity and Investment Board, chosen from pertinent sectors of the Iraqi economy.
Local representatives of the 18 provinces of Iraq will put this board together, in local elections.
4) At the beginning of this period, the United Nations will declare that Iraq is a sovereign state again, and will be forming a Union of 18 autonomous regions. Each region will, with the help of international experts, and local bureaucrats, do a census as a first step toward the creation of a municipal government for all 18 provinces. After the census, a voting roll will be completed. Any group that gets a list of 15% of the names on this census will be able to nominate a slate of representatives. When all the parties have chosen their slates, a period of one-month will be allowed for campaigning.
Then in a popular election the group with the most votes will represent that province.
When the voters choose a slate, they will also be asked to choose five individual members of any of the slates.
The individuals who have the five highest vote counts will represent a National government.
This whole process, in every province, will be watched by international observers as well as the local bureaucrats.
During this process of local elections: a central governing board, made up of United Nations, Election governing experts, insurgency organizations, US and British peacekeepers, and Arab league representatives, will assume the temporary duties of administering Baghdad, and the central duties of governing.
When the ninety representatives are elected they will assume the legislative duties of Iraq for two years.
Within three months the parties that have at least 15% of the representatives will nominate candidates for President and Prime Minister.
A national wide election for these offices will be held within three months from their nomination.
The President and the Vice President and the Prime Minister will choose their cabinet, after the election.
5) All debts accrued by Iraq will be rescheduled to begin payment, on the principal after one year, and on the interest after two years. If Iraq is able to handle another loan during this period she should be given a grace period of two years, from the taking of the loan, to comply with any structural adjustments.
6) The United States and the United Kingdom shall pay Iraq reparations for its invasion in the total of 120 billion dollars over a period of twenty years for damages to its infrastructure. This money can be defrayed as investment, if the return does not exceed 6.5 %.
7) During beginning period Saddam Hussein and any other prisoners who are deemed by a Council of Iraqi Judges, elected by the National representative body, as having committed crimes will be put up for trial.
December 2nd, 2005 at 12:45 amThe trial of Saddam Hussein will be before seven judges, chosen from this Council of Judges.
One judge, one jury, again chosen by this Council, will try all other prisoners.
All defendants will have the right to present any evidence they want, and to choose freely their own lawyers.
Bush LIED?
I'm shocked!
Shocked!
Actually I would be shocked if I caught him telling the truth.
December 2nd, 2005 at 12:50 amBubba,
I already stopped expecting anything coming remotely close to a coherent response from wwallace. No matter how many times you present the evidence, he comes back with the same absurd posts.
He also follows the steps you list with an additional twist: He never accepts he has been proven wrong. Ever. There is no intellectual honesty in any exchange with him.
There are other, actual conservative people who are somewhat regulars in this blog you can actually engage in a debate.
December 2nd, 2005 at 12:51 amI was reading a book by Russell Shorto on how the Bible was created. He believes the early Christian communities made up the virgin birth and all that, to attract new members. They saw these lies as permissible because they were a means to convince others of a larger truth, that Jesus really was the son of God.
I said to myself, "Well, durn! that's what George the Bushman did in the run-up to Iraq.†He lied us into war because he was convinced that Saddam's removal was a good that was worth doing bad to accomplish. It's the way Christians have operated throughout history. Lies, torture, murders, depredations of all sorts are O.K. with God, they believe, if they further the cause of their religion.
Today, that kind of thinking resides mostly in the right wing of that religion George espouses. They lie because they believe they are saving the souls of others. In the process they lose their own.
December 2nd, 2005 at 12:52 amWILL SOMEONE THE"RIGHT" TELL ME WHY MR BUSH IS NOT TELLING THE PUBLIC THAT THERE ARE "FOREIGN, YES FOREIGN TROOPS INSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES. THE REASON GIVEN,IS THAT THEY ARE HERE, JUST IN CASE WE HAVE A NEED FOR "MARTIAL LAW". THIS WAS STATED BY REPUB. RON PAUL OF TEXAS.
December 2nd, 2005 at 12:55 amHey Lyle (post #7),
Next time tell your (liberal) shrink that you are out of Prozac ( or Budweiser) before you take it out on all of us here.
My guess is that you still believe all those fairy tales your momma told you at bedtime. That's why you swallow Chimpy's BS with a smile.
I could have parsed together one of *'s specches from 3 years ago and I guarantee you that it would be more topical than that lie-laced drivel he foisted on us yesterday.
You would think that someone who earns $500,000 a year could afford treatment for his sociopathy. And since I pay some of his salary (he works for the AMERICAN PEOPLE and make no mistake, he IS our employee), he should be fired, as a similarly-performing CEO in the real world exhibiting such behavior would quickly be demoted to flipping burgers.
George Bush sees no consequence and takes no responsibility for his actions. Maybe if he went to a few GI funerals, it would straighten his ass out. His judgement is poor, and his compassion is a complete fabrication.
Don't rave at us. Your knuckles will hurt less after you master walking fully upright.
Call me back when you have evolved into a thinking, sentient human, you moron.
December 2nd, 2005 at 1:20 ammnjosh,
Gregor is correct about the source, interestingly enough the Lieberman poll is from an 'unknown' source which is only listed as "polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism"
This was NOT a professionally conducted poll, and it's unclear who or what population was involved.
I understand your skepticism about polls, as the Lieberman one shows how easy it is to get an unprofessional one (the recent free republic one is another fine example) done by propagandist to sway an idiot like the DLC Lieberman.
December 2nd, 2005 at 1:21 amJames Hellmuth, thank you for once again bringing religion into a discussion that does note relate to relgion at all. I salute you. As for your comment "It’s the way Christians have operated throughout history. Lies, torture, murders, depredations of all sorts are O.K. with God, they believe, if they further the cause of their religion," ummm... that can pretty much be said of all religions: Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, ect. People take religion and twist it. It doesn't just happen in Christianity. That's just a fact. As for the actual topic, there were 11 Iraqi batallions in the assault on Tal Afar. Say an Iraqi batallion has 300 men in it (for a low estimate). Are you telling me that the reporter was able to cover around 3,300 individual Iraqi soldiers in urban warfare? Common sense answer: I don't think so. Could have the unit he was with not been leading the charge? Certainly. I'm not trying to say the reporter is lying, but we would need more clarification as to what he saw and where he was. But, alas, CNN allows only for good sound bites and contradicting the President gets you airtime.
December 2nd, 2005 at 1:25 amThanks for the link to the poll guys. Gotta go check it out right now.
December 2nd, 2005 at 1:27 amThe reason the Iraqi's didn't cut and run this time was because if they did they would have been shot by the green berets.Bush has no intentions of leaving any sooner than he has to. The longer he keeps troops there, the more money the defence companies make and since his friends and relatives own stock in almost every defence company in the country, this war makes them richer every day longer it lasts. When it is over, then it will be Cheneys turn to profit from rebuilding it thru Halliburton.
December 2nd, 2005 at 1:37 amI am so pleased to see a mainstream news journalist using the L word (Lied).
Even in cases where mainstream journalists seem perfectly willing to have a somewhat critical, or at least investigative, attitude toward the bush administration's actions, ultimately the administration's statements/claims are brushed off as exaggeration or ambiguity.
And it's true that the rove clan is damn good at linguistically toeing the line, so that they can say absurd things without anyone putting the energy into actually calling them Liars.
But I suppose now things are a'changin'. The administration needs to make even wilder claims, and the journalists feel better about being more critical.
December 2nd, 2005 at 1:44 amRe. 487:
December 2nd, 2005 at 1:50 amI'm very familiar with the Wallaces of the world. You are right in that you can't convert them or even get them to admit error. You can make them hurt a little when they post nonsense, though. Do this often enough and the ideologues will leave. Then people can have online debates that are based on fact and logic, which is the only way anyone learns anything useful.
The numbers are not good. The only thing is that even if the Iraqis don't support and hate the occupation troops they certainly want a democratic government. I guess we'll see how strong that support is in the coming elections.
December 2nd, 2005 at 2:06 amYa know I looked into the Blacks Law Dictionary 5th ed. again, it Defines a LIE as a 'Misleading Statement'
~~~~~~~~~~
So The Bushies Jawwing about the difference in the WORD LIE is POINTLESS and only adds to their Baseless, defense, WHICH wouldnt HOLD up in COURT. JUST LIKE that word Eminent we shot Down remember?
For the Bushies Robertson base;
n order for a Christian to be the victorious soldier the Lord expects him to be, it is imperative he have his "loins girt about with truth" (Ephesians 6:14a).
Another
see Lie (disambiguation).
A lie is a statement made by someone who believes or suspects it to be false, in the expectation that the hearers may believe it. Thus a true statement may be a lie if the speaker thinks it is false. Fictions, though false, are not necessarily lies. Inasmuch as lying involves pretended truth, the truth pretended is an imaginary antecedent. Depending on definitions, a lie can be a genuine falsehood or a selective truth, a lie by omission, or even the truth if the intention is to deceive or to cause an action not in the listener's interests. To lie is to tell a lie. A person who tells a lie, and especially a person who habitually tells lies, is a liar. To lie involves intentional deception./em>
December 2nd, 2005 at 2:18 amCaption Contest Part Deux;
December 2nd, 2005 at 2:26 amDecember 2nd, 2005 at 2:29 am
Lyle
Iraq needs US help forced down there throats just like they need DU WP and HE dropped all over the hood
King George : "Off with his head"
December 2nd, 2005 at 3:02 amDiebold E Voting rocks.
December 2nd, 2005 at 3:52 amIMO, What I find more disturbing than Bush's blatant lies is what he is purposely NOT tell the American people. The few cool-aid drinking Bushevieks continue to regurgitate the same propaganda... That this war is about our desire to spread democracy and 'good will' to the Iraq people so that they can, finally, be freed from a terrible dictator. Adding insult to injury, relying only upon sources such as FOX news and "Brush Lintball", and not caring to take the time to seek the truth, these same defenders of the Bush kingdom label "liberals" and "Dems" as traitors to our country, and charging us with NOT supporting our troops.
Truth be told, Iraq is an f*ing mess right now...
Before posting any more sunshine and roses bullcrap about Bush's concern for the Iraq people (or OUR troops), I implore you to educate yourself on the current (and very real) situation now taking place between the different sects of the Iraqi people.
Bush has recently placed new labels the Sunni Iraqi's as "Saddamists" or "Rejectionists". Although the minority population Sunni's followed under Sadam's old regime, they remain with a very secular ideology. However, those pretty much hand-picked by Bush's administration to run Iraq are the Shiites (The majority of the Iraqi population ... and who just so happens to be the least secular, the most oppressed by the Sunni's when under Saddam, as well as the ones most fueled for revenge against Sunni's now.
Oh yes...and one more fact about this Shiite group most likely to be voted to run the "New Iraq"... They are also Radical Islamists who are known to despise any form of secular government!!
Having strict radical Islamic religious views as mandates included in the new Iraq constitution aren't likely to prove a democracy of any kind for these people. In fact, women in Iraq are already having rights str