VIDEO: Rice Calls Idea That Iraq War Contributed To Regional Instability ‘Grotesque’
VIDEO: Rice Calls Idea That Iraq War Contributed To Regional Instability ‘Grotesque’
Today on ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos pointed out that the Bush administration repeatedly promised that war in Iraq would bring peace and stability to the Middle East. But as the recent violence in the Middle East has shown, the region has actually fallen deeper into instability and unrest since the war began. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Stephanopoulos it was “grotesque” to suggest that the Iraq war contributed to that instability. Watch it:
Full transcript:
STEPHANOPOULOS: But before the war in Iraq many argued that going into Iraq would stir up a hornet’s nest. The administration strongly disagreed and here’s what Vice President Cheney had to say in August 2002.
CHENEY (VIDEO): I believe the opposite is true. Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region, extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jihad, moderates throughout the region would take heart, and our ability to advance the Israeli/Palestinian peace process would be enhanced.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Extremists now appear to have been emboldened. The moderates appear to be in retreat. There is no peace process. There is war. How do you answer administration critics who say that the administration’s actions have unleashed, have helped unleash the very hostilities you hoped to contain?
RICE: Well, first of all, those hostilities were not very well contained as we found out on September 11th, so the notion that policies that finally confront extremism are actually causing extremism, I find grotesque.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Rice is evil and qrotesque.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:15 amReality, I don’t need no stinkin reality!!!!
July 16th, 2006 at 11:19 amYes Kay, she is grotesque. She is a fiesty little squealing immoral failure. As is her boss and his thugs. We have to act to save this country by waking up, holding idiots like Rice, The MSM, and our luxury addicted congressmen accountable.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:21 amYeah, its just a coincidence.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:21 amThere it is…”September 11″
You can expect to hear these neocoms inserting Sept 11 into every comment they make. Fear mongering is the only thing they have left…not that they had much else to begin with.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:22 amGODAMN!
July 16th, 2006 at 11:23 amThis woman will say ANYTHING.
9-11, 9-11, 9-11. That happened BEFORE you spent all our money on not finding the mushroom cloud. How much shit do we have to wade through before they are all brough up on charges?
We need a war crimes trial for the Bush Whitehouse.
The only thing the neocons want Americans to remember about September 11 is the fear it created.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:24 amApparently, the US plan is to fight Muslim extremism with our own brand of US extremism, at the same time denying that our own extremism could possible cause the exact same response in others.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:25 amYes, if Saddam Hussein were still in power, I’m sure none of this would ever have happened, and Saddam would have sat twiddling his thumbs while Israel pounded Hezbollah. Mmmmhm. Pull my other leg.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:25 amMust remember talking point… Must remember talking point…
“Well, first of all, those hostilities were not very well contained as we found out on September 11th,”
There. Now as long as people forget that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11…and that there have been other terrorist attacks around the world since we invaded Iraq… and that Bush gave the green light to Israel to continue its attack on Lebannon… and that we have inflamed Islamist extremists around the world by our treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo and Abu Garib and by secret renditions, not to mention raping and murdering Iraqi civilians….
As long as she says the magic words, 9/11, the fox news watchers will believe her.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:28 am
If Saddam Hussein were still in power, the US might still have some credibility in the world.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:28 amWhen the basis for attacking Iraq was a lie, then the advertised outcomes will not occur. The occupation of Iraq has nothing to do with political stability in the region. It has always been about oil and greed. EVERYONE outside of the USA recognizes the weakened political and moral state of this mis-administration and doesn’t care what we want or think.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:28 amOnly a someone who is dislusional could call the idea the Iraq war contributed to Middle East instability “grotesque.”
It is clear to me that this woman’s climb to power had little to do with her competence and much to do with her loyalty and efficacy in spouting talking points.
Geez Louise and the bees knees she gives Political Science Ph.D.s everywhere a bad name. Apparently all one’s Political Science dissertation has to say is “good vs. evil. The end.”
July 16th, 2006 at 11:30 amPeace and stability will come to the Middle East when Israel completes its mission to destroy the terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas, the U.S. destroys Al Qaeda, and Arab governments crack down on the Islamic militants in their countries.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:31 amDude! Go somewhere else and spectulate endlessly about what the future would be if… Your act is tired, hackneyed and frayed.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:32 amAnd what is the price of oil now? How are profits in the oil industry (which named a tanker after this woman)?
Tell me again why anyone thinks that peace, stability, and a decrease in extremism in the middle east has ever been the goal of this administration? Does she think that Muqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army are just a bunch of moderates? They were all hiding in plain sight under Saddam?
With all the hatred of Israel and the US now roiling in the middle east, why is it I should feel safer than when there was diplomacy, a peace process and the beginning of reconciliation? How many people is the middle east think of the US as an honest broker now, huh?
July 16th, 2006 at 11:33 amI find it grotesque that the US Secretary of State has a supertanker named after her in the Chevron fleet.
And that they actually think we’re supposed to believe that the occupation of Iraq has nothing to do with oil.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:34 amCondi Rice’s mostly good at covering her own ass, not much more.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:35 amPeace and stability will come to the Middle East when IT IS TURNED INTO A GRAVEYARD.
Get real Exley (if that’s possible). Violent means will not achieve a peaceful end. Israel has beencracking down on the Islamic militants in its country for over 60 years without achieving peace and stability within its bordedrs.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:36 amGreat capture by TP, by the way. Could her face look more grotesque? Yikes.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:36 amThe tragic follies of this Bush presidency are grotesque! How many more people will die before we can bring an end to this Adminstration? -Kevo
July 16th, 2006 at 11:37 amUS to expand training ground for CIA covert terrorists as well as Islamic jihadists and Jewish Zionist terrorists. Only the Secret State of America could bring out the worst of all possiblities throughout the world. Lord knows, they’ve been at it for over 100 years.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:40 amPeace and stability will come to the Middle East when Israel completes its mission to destroy the terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas, the U.S. destroys Al Qaeda, and Arab governments crack down on the Islamic militants in their countries.
Comment by Exley — July 16, 2006 @ 11:31 am
So tell me…if Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah and Hamas create more members in Hezbollah and Hamas, how, exactly, is Israel EVER supposed to “complete it’s mission to destroy Hezbollah and Hamas”?
How much of history must repeat itself over and over and over and over and over again before people realize that attacking these organizations only fuels their recruiting efforts?
July 16th, 2006 at 11:40 amYou almost have it right, Briseadh na Faire …
“Peace and stability will come to the Middle East when IT IS TURNED INTO A GRAVEYARD FOR ISLAMIC TERRORISTS“
July 16th, 2006 at 11:41 amFor a professor of international politics , she understand nothing in geopolitics . in tribal interests , in oil politics , in the desire of fringes movements for power and wealth and above all the power of religious myths .It is not surprising she would spill such ridiculous statement . Let us make no bones about it ,the power and influence of the USA has been greatly diminished . Perhaps we are at the dawn of the fall of the American Empire .
July 16th, 2006 at 11:41 amIf Saddam were still in power 2,500 American troops and 60,000 Iraqis people would still be alive. Countless more people would not be maimed for life. Gasoline would not be $3 a gallon in teh United States. The average Iraqi would have potable drinking water, electricity and no fear of bombs or religious thugs killing them.
Yes, Saddam was an ass. But he was the lesser of two evils. Things were better under Saddam.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:44 amIf it’s not the Iraq conflict destablizing the region, I guess it must just be PNAC’s foreign policy approach as a whole.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:44 amit must just be PNAC’s foreign policy approach as a whole.
BINGO!
We have a winner!
July 16th, 2006 at 11:45 amHezbollah and Hamas were Democractically elected.
Oh, yes, its only Democracy if the neocons approve of who they elect. Typical.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:46 amWhen referring to Iraq Bush will say that the talking about the violence there is just what the “terrorists” want. Yet, Bush has made talking about the terrorist violence of 9/11 the lynchpin of his presidency. Douchemongers, one and all.
-GSD
July 16th, 2006 at 11:48 amOur wonderful “war president” and his neocon pals (who are the real decision makers – sorry Mr. Decider) have dreamed of full out war in the middle east for the past twenty years. Well, now they have it. What will be the positives for the USA? Nothing, unless you’re invested in certain government favored companies who happen to specalize in re-construction or own oil related stock. Get ready for VERY HIGH prices at the local gas pump.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:48 amMNW, With all due respect, the “attacking-terrorists-only-creates-more-terrorists” is a cliche….Unless you believe that every Arab or Muslim is a terrorist-in-waiting, the calculus is that killing terrorists and reduces their ranks…Moreover, that is also why I said Arab governments need to crack down on the fundamentalist Islamists in their own countries who are recruiting and funding terrorists. The war against terrorism has many components and many fronts.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:48 amConservatives live in the world they WISH existed, instead of the world that exists. Hence the absurd perspectives on the world.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:49 amIt was Rice herself that wasa saber-rattling leading up to the invasion of Iraq with her talk of “smoking guns in the form of a mushroom cloud”. The civil war there, the infiltration into Iraq by some foreign jihadists, the price of oil going astronomical has NOTHING to do the current regional instablity? In a pig’s eye!!!
July 16th, 2006 at 11:51 amThat is about all he could do. As he had no WMDs as has been prven for 3 years by the UNited States Military.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:53 amSpeaking of pig… as this latest conflagration was getting started, that’s all our War-Time President could think of!
July 16th, 2006 at 11:53 amMNW, With all due respect, the “attacking-terrorists-only-creates-more-terrorists†is a cliche….Unless you believe that every Arab or Muslim is a terrorist-in-waiting, the calculus is that killing terrorists and reduces their ranks-Exley
Exley, with all due respect, I think most people in the intelligence agencies in the US will readily tell you (in private, perhaps) that the war in Iraq has lead to dramatic increases in recruiting by extremist groups. Even though terrorists are being killed, there are many more being created.
One of my friends who works in Iraq said that the saying amongst the soldiers is that the terrorists/insurgents are like Doritos: crunch all you want, we’ll make more. Crude, I know, but it gives you some insight into the way folks on the ground are seeing things.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:55 amIt seems that alot of people are very impressed with the intelligence, stature, and clout of Ms. Rice as Secretary of State.
I for one am unimpressed.
She has a great grasp of world geography, history, political movements/motives and players, but like that of Colin Powell, her obedient personal duty plus loyalty and noecon brainwashing seems to undercut any practical use of this knowledge.
Book smart; not real world smart – or at least so bought into the neocon view of the world that no true learning or enlightenment can occur. The rest of the world (even the majority of the US) doesn’t want or need to be lectured by neocons on how things should be.
The prime example of how intellectually dried up her capabilities are (or have become) is the 9-11 arguement, as others here indicate. A person with her background and education should be able to reason through many possible underlying causes of “those hostilities were not very well contained” including how hostile interests are fueled/fostered in the first place.
Really, she cannot understand how mideast destabilization and further hatred of the US and our policies by attacking “threats” unrelated to 9-11 (as Iraq was and is)? Really, she cannot see that our (pre)occupation with Iraq may be contributing to our inability to deal with anything else related to 9-11, mideast peace, or unrest in other areas of the world?
I don’t believe she could possibly be this ignorant. Therefore, she is lying! Invoking 9-11 is not only demonstates ignorance and political motive, but also intellectual laziness.
Some modicum of intellectual honesty is required to gain my respect.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:56 amYes, we must continue fighting the war we have been fighting for 1100 years. We must continue the Crusades and find the lost pieces to the cross Jesus was crusified on. Yes continue until the gentiles can no longer call us infidels.
Muslim is to Jihad as Christian is to Crusade. Nothing more, nothing less. They are all sick in the head.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:57 am“Well, first of all, those hostilities were not very well contained as we found out on September 11th,…”
Just like the Asshole-in-Chief, whenever you have NO policy, NO idea what to do, and are faced with the reality of your misguided fantasy collapsing around you, Condi goes to the golden oldies list once again…. 9/11, 9/11, 9/11.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:58 amExley come on. Tell it like it is. Stop beating around the bush and be straight up. We know what you want. We know you really think it should read like this.
“Peace and stability will come to the Middle East when IT IS TURNED INTO A GRAVEYARD FOR ISLAMIC PEOPLE“
Keep on keeping on Crusader.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:01 pmYes, if Saddam Hussein were still in power, I’m sure none of this would ever have happened, and Saddam would have sat twiddling his thumbs while Israel pounded Hezbollah. Mmmmhm. Pull my other leg.
Comment by Seixon — July 16, 2006 @ 11:25 am
So, Seixon, you think perhaps Saddam would have responded with his non-existent airforce, or his non-existent weapons of mass destruction, or his crippled economy, or his army in tatters? Have you forgotten that we’ve PROVEN with our invasion that Saddam was a paper tiger who was barely keeping a lid on a massive conflagration of sectarian violence? Please describe the stiff resistance Saddam offered our ground invasion. Regale us with the overwhelming might of the Iraqi army under Saddam in 2002.
Hezbollah and al Qaida thrive on hatred, economic dispair, a sense of injustice, and a feeling of religious persecution. What, exactly, has US policy done to diminish any of these things? In particular, please describe how the “liberated” Abu Garaib fits into this strategy.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:02 pmCondi Rice is the worst Secretary of State in the United States’ history! She must resign!
July 16th, 2006 at 12:05 pmComment by Peter Christian — July 16, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
Interesting point, Peter. So does the evangelical/conservative Christians and the Bush Administration.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:06 pmExley, so by your own definition, OUR govt should crack down on YOU! You sound like nothing more than a whack-ass christian terrorist.
“Peace and stability will come to the Middle East when IT IS TURNED INTO A GRAVEYARD FOR ISLAMIC TERRORISTS“
July 16th, 2006 at 12:06 pmIf Saddam were still in power 2,500 American troops and 60,000 Iraqis people would still be alive.
True, the American troops would probably be alive, but I’m not so sure that the number of Iraqis you cite here would still be alive. Obviously not 60,000 (a number which is just a guesstimate) but Saddam wasn’t one to hold the lives of his subjects in much regard.
Countless more people would not be maimed for life.
Well, again, probably not as many as Saddam would have maimed, but looking at this in a historical perspective…
Gasoline would not be $3 a gallon in teh United States.
Bzzzt. Wrong. There are many factors for the oil price, such as strongly increasing demand in China and Asia in general. The production of oil in Iraq is about the same as it was before the war.
The average Iraqi would have potable drinking water, electricity and no fear of bombs or religious thugs killing them.
According to the Brookings Institute, there are 3 million additional people being served potable drinking water than before the war.
There is more electricity production in Iraq as a whole than there was before the war (3958MW vs. 4200MW).
Fear of bombs is mostly confined to Baghdad.
Religious thugs is a problem that has come about since the fall of Saddam Hussein, yes. Yet again, most of Iraq is quiet and safe, most of the violence happening in central Iraq.
Yes, Saddam was an ass. But he was the lesser of two evils. Things were better under Saddam.
The majority of Iraqis don’t agree with you, but you’re free to have an opinion that contrasts with theirs if you wish. I’ll stick with the Iraqis on Iraq – you can stick with yourself on Iraq.
Oh, and you’ve just been thoroughly debunked. Have a read.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:06 pmtroll alert,
A new study has come out and was published in my local right wing paper, the Orange County Register, yesterday. The new study puts the number of American deaths at three times the reported number. Why? Well, it turns out that all of us left wing whacko conspiracy theroists were right. They ship the wounded out of Iraq ASAP, so if they die, they are not counted as “killed in Iraq” Sad. Very Sad.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:06 pmYou almost have it right, Briseadh na Faire …
“Peace and stability will come to the Middle East when IT IS TURNED INTO A GRAVEYARD FOR ISLAMIC TERRORISTS“
Comment by Exley — July 16, 2006 @ 11:41 am
Wait! Isn’t the Middle East ALREADY a graveyard for islamic terrorists? Aren’t they the people we claim to have been killing over there so we wouldn’t have to fight them over here? I thought you’d contend that most of those killed by US troops were “bad guys” with hardly any innocent civilians as collateral damage.
So, why no peace and stability NOW? I don’t suppose it could be that we’re CREATING THEM faster than we’re KILLING THEM, huh?
July 16th, 2006 at 12:11 pmThere has been a mass exodus of Iraqis to Jordan, among other countries. Surely this would not be the case if things were actually better than they were under Saddam.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:11 pmSexion,
Brookings is in bed with AEI, Fux News, and other right leaning trash collectors.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article30065.html
July 16th, 2006 at 12:13 pmPeter Christian,
I used to engage Seixon here, until it became obvious that it was useless. I believe at least one of his goals is to pick fights over here, so he can whine about it to the handful of people who read his blog. His posts routinely hijack threads, and unfortunately I have facilitated this in the past. You seem like a reasonably fellow. Don’t enable him.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:14 pmThe mass killings that Saddam did were during the 80s when Reagan was supplying him with WMDs. After Desert Storm there were no more mass killings. A death or two here or there, but no mass killings, so no the 60,000 Iraqis would not have been killied by Saddam.
Next.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:16 pmDrSinker,
What do you count as a “mass exodus”?
The group of Iraqis most unhappy with things right now are the Sunni, as they see everything basically the opposite of the Kurds and Shiites, for pretty obvious reasons.
Not too fun to have been the kings of the hill only to lose all your power when the sugardaddy gets put behind bars…
July 16th, 2006 at 12:17 pmI suppose this thread might shoot to 400+ postings with the Norwegian in here > lol.
Seixon > do you get paid overtime rates to post on Sundays?
July 16th, 2006 at 12:18 pmOkay, I noticed it too, she says that “[the extremism was not very well contained, just look at 9/11]” … once again suggesting that Iraq was the cause of 9/11. Then she says that the CURRENT instability in Iraq is NOW contributing to the PRESENT ME instability is grotesque, ie, that there is NO connection between Iraq and extremism behavior in the middle east.
I would be getting dizzy here if I hadn’t swum for the shore of a larger Lakoffian frame…. [what?]
July 16th, 2006 at 12:19 pmJay Randal,
You know he does. He is now repeating the same lies he has been proven wrong about on many occasions. I think that is the point when Judd needs to start deleting his posts.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:20 pmMark, my words, we are looking at a potential bloodbath that could run into the millions. Iraq is at the root of it, only the willfully blind could suggest that destabilising Iraq and turning the country into a failed state haven for terrorists is having no effect on regional stability.
The assertion is so ludicrous, it hardly warrants a response. Indeed, what can one so to people some inured, so deeply in denial? Would could get through?
Sitting on the edge of my seat ….
July 16th, 2006 at 12:22 pmSaddam Hussien is not behind bars. He hasn’t been found guilty of anything yet. He is a world leader, so is staying at the same kind of facility that our politicians go to when they break the law. Camp Snoopy.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:23 pmPost 56 Spudge > Judd seems to tolerate the Norwegian for some unknown reason?
July 16th, 2006 at 12:23 pmSpudge,
I disagree. I think it would be better if people simply not respond. He’s baiting, not much more. I think part of him almost wants to get banned, simply to claim some kind of victory. His posts on his own blog suggest as much.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:24 pmHezbollah and al Qaida thrive on hatred, economic dispair, a sense of injustice, and a feeling of religious persecution.
Comment by Peter Christian — July 16, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
Interesting point, Peter. So does the evangelical/conservative Christians and the Bush Administration.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — July 16, 2006 @ 12:06 pm
That is an excellent observation. Under those conditions, people act motivated by emotion rather than reason, and do things against thier own best interests (like blow themselves up or vote Republican). This is why Limbaugh, Hannity, and the like are constantly bringing up ridiculous strawmen like the “war on Christmas”. That way the Evangelical conservative base feels persecuted.
It is also why the Republicans will kill any push to raise the minimum wage. Must have economic despair, caused (blamelessly) by the invisible hand of the market, or maybe just those heathen Chinese.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:25 pmBrian Coughlan,
Welcome to the modern day Crusades. Christains vs Muslims in a battle to the end. You know what is so funny? None of the idiotic rapture ready folks realize that there has to be PEACE in the Middle East for the rapture to happen. Also, the anti-Christ must be somebody that everybody in the world loves. Can you name any person on the face of the planet that everybody loves? I know I can’t. And I don’t think Garfield counts.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:26 pmFire them! Fire them all. How much incompetence must we tolerate? I pay for this shit with my taxes, goddammit!.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:27 pmGood, ban him, let him declare victory on his piece of shit site and then let’s move on without him.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:27 pmSpudge,
If people simply don’t respond, he’ll disappear eventually. No action by Judd required.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:29 pmDrSinker,
You’re right of course. I’ll stop engaging Seixon. It does no good and is a waste of time.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:31 pmNone of the idiotic rapture ready folks realize that there has to be PEACE in the Middle East for the rapture to happen.
No offense spudge boy, but I personally consider the entire apocalyptic rapture business unabridged tripe. Worse, it has a significant proportion of the US electorate cheerleading and championing wholescale slaughter.
If we do end up in a WWIII type slaughter, and it seems possible that this might happen, the leaders of the US will be held to account. Just like Hitler and his cronies where held to account.
Trying to “democratise the middle east”, will look pretty poor stacked up against a 100 million dead, should the worst happen. The bill will have to be paid, and America is currently holding that mortgage:-(
July 16th, 2006 at 12:32 pmMNW, With all due respect, the “attacking-terrorists-only-creates-more-terrorists†is a cliche…Unless you believe that every Arab or Muslim is a terrorist-in-waiting, the calculus is that killing terrorists and reduces their ranks…Moreover, that is also why I said Arab governments need to crack down on the fundamentalist Islamists in their own countries who are recruiting and funding terrorists.
With all due respect, you’re a quick one to believe that attacks on terrorists only kills terrorists. We’re killing Muslims. PERIOD. If you want to believe that attacks on terrorists only kills terrorists and doesn’t create more terrorists, go right ahead, but it is that short-sighted thinking that will bring about more and more war with terrorists.
When we attack terrorists we (as well as Israel) kill more than just terrorists. We kill INNOCENT civilians. We kill mothers. We kill fathers. We kill brothers. We kill sisters. We kill sons. We kill daughters. We kill entire families. But you don’t think killing innocent civilians causes their survivors to consider joining those groups and organizations that are our enemy? We kill people…not just terrorists…and we create more terrorists when we do. Accept it or not…but reality doesn’t require your acceptance of fact.
As for your impotent conclusion that one must believe that every Arab or Muslim is a “terrorist-in-waiting” and that killing terrorists reduces their ranks…you obviously haven’t considered the fact that we don’t just kill terrorists.
The war against terrorism has many components and many fronts.
The “war against terrorism” is the cliche. It’s no more a war on terrorism than the “the war on drugs” is a war on drugs…or “the war on poverty” is a war on poverty.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:33 pmIf people simply don’t respond, he’ll disappear eventually. No action by Judd required.
Agreed, lesson learned. I sank 5 or 6 hours into “discussions” with him. He is a disingenous, but articulate troll. Best to simply ignore, he’s not here to engage or grow.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:35 pmActually, I have been posting here for years and they never go away. Never. If you don’t respond, their lies and deciet sit here unanswered. SO, you go right ahead and not respond and I will. How’s that.
The trolls never go away. They are paid to post here.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:37 pmWell of course it is. I didn’t say I believe it, but belief has nothing to do with knowledge. I was raised Christian and have read the Bible form front to back cover. I am just pointing out the inconsistencies in the bullshit they spew.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:39 pmCareful Goddamit,
Read up on PNAC before you dismiss this administration as incompetent. There is much about the current state of affairs which coincides with the goals of the new american century that they described before they came to power. If we only cry, “incompetent!” they will use their campaign money to smear us as no better. In many ways, this situation is the result, not of incompetence, but of strategic neglect.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:41 pmMNW,
Let us also not forget that just because a Muslim is an insurgent, doesn’t mean they are a terrrorist. There is a difference. By responding with an umbrella answer of terrorist, you are playing into the hands of the right wingers.
When we kill an insurgent and some civilians are killed in the attack, we very well could be creating more terrorists.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:42 pmActually, I have been posting here for years and they never go away. Never. If you don’t respond, their lies and deciet sit here unanswered. SO, you go right ahead and not respond and I will. How’s that.-Spudge
If I thought such a strategy would prevent the threads from being hijacked, I’d say go for it. But it won’t. Even one person engaging this can ruin honest, serious debate here for the rest.
Why don’t we just call him out as a troll, and remind newcomers of the same. I think the lies and deceit are obvious to most people. Look at his first post in this thread. Who says that other than someone looking to troll?
July 16th, 2006 at 12:42 pmWe kill INNOCENT civilians. We kill mothers. We kill fathers. We kill brothers. We kill sisters. We kill sons. We kill daughters. We kill entire families. But you don’t think killing innocent civilians causes their survivors to consider joining those groups and organizations that are our enemy? We kill people…not just terrorists
Well said. This lesson has been learned independently by several European states. Ireland, the UK, Spain, Germany and with luck Turkey are a few examples that spring directly to mind.
Motives count. Understand why, address the underlying cause. It takes longer, but eventually bears fruit and short of total war and killing every man, woman and child on the “other” side, it is the only alternative.
Regretably, there are now many Americans that relish the idea of total war:-( As did the Germans in 1941. A mere 4 years later Germany was in ruins and 50 million people where dead, some 10 million of them Germans. Do Americans really want to roll these dice?
July 16th, 2006 at 12:43 pmI do not seek conclusion or answers from Seixon. He is hopeless. He is a lap dog for his neo con masters.
I will continue to attack his lies.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:44 pmLeaving aside your silly comment that “we are killing Muslims PERIOD,” I would ask what you would do about the problem of Islamic terrorism, MNW….It’s really astonishing…Over 60 postings here (and hundreds in other threads) and I don’t think I have ever read anyone here offer an alternative policy for dealing with the very real problem that there are groups of Islamic militants out there who have already — and want to continue — to slaughter thousands of American civilians…All I read is criticism (most of it juvenile), but never any alternates. Anyone out there have anything constructive to say?
July 16th, 2006 at 12:46 pmDrSinker,
Sorry. You do it your way, I will do it mine. As I said, I have been posting here for years. The trolls do not go away if you ignore them. They will just continue posting lies over and over and over. I will not let their lies stand. You can ignore them all day long. It is possible for you oto ignore my posts that respond to troll posts, just as easy as it is for me to ignore posts about stuff I don’t believe in or care about.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:47 pmI will continue to attack his lies.-Spudge
Spudge, I can appreciate the fact that part of you also enjoys battling with Seixon. But, seriously, put it to rest. Some lies are so clearly a joke they don’t merit an attack. It’s called baiting, and he’s good at it.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:47 pmAll I read is criticism (most of it juvenile), but never any alternates. Anyone out there have anything constructive to say?
Are you being a troll, or looking for a genuine answer? There are many that spring to mind.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:48 pmThe Norwegian must be sulking since his posts have ceased at the moment?! Well at least the America troll has not come back to post any more on TP > knock on wood for that to continue!
July 16th, 2006 at 12:49 pmSpudge,
I also think the fact that most here, today, have decided not to respond to him has had an effect. His presence on this thread is clearly diminished.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:49 pmDenverDem,
Wow, now I’ve heard that too. Shoot the messenger by lying. Good job.
DrSinker et al,
You guys are cowards, plain and simple. I am discussing the topic here, but none of you want to be bothered with pesky facts and actually backing up your comments. I think it’s quite illuminating that very many people believe I am actually paid to post comments here. In any sane world, that would seem ridiculous, not to mention because of the complete inefficiency of such an operation and its seemingly nonexistent results.
Just as with most partisan hack sites, you would rather have me banned than having to deal with inconvenient facts that ruin the agenda.
Like Spudge claiming Reagan sold Iraq WMDs: LOL. The CDC sent Iraqi universities bacteria samples, and we sold them… chlorine! What else? See, you guys peddle complete lies all the time and do not want me to call you on them.
It’s funny that none of you have even challenged anything I have said in this thread, instead trying to ridiculously undermine my sources by pretending they are right-wingers when that is completely laughable.
No one has challenged my notion that Saddam Hussein in Iraq would have made this situation worse, not better. None of you have challenged that. You’re stuck in spin-mode.
Jay Randal keeps lying about me and is too chickenshit to email me, citing some weird paranoid fantasies in order to rationalize not doing it, even though I have a legitimate matter of discussion to have with him. Seems he has things to hide.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:49 pmI think we all agree that it is Rice who is grotesque.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:50 pmShe and the entire incompetent Bush cabal who live in a parallel universe.
Let us also not forget that just because a Muslim is an insurgent, doesn’t mean they are a terrrorist. There is a difference. By responding with an umbrella answer of terrorist, you are playing into the hands of the right wingers.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — July 16, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
A Sunni Muslim walks into a crowded, predominantly Shiite marketplace and blows hmself up, killing 20 innocent civilians.
A Shia Muslim walks into a crowded, predominantly Sunni marketplace and blows himself up, killing 20 innocent civilians.
Both are terrorists….but which one is the “insurgent”?
July 16th, 2006 at 12:51 pmRice is a pathological liar for the fake war on terror : she (and her cohorts in state sponsored false flag terrorism) like to bring up 9/11 so the dumb as shit Americans can get all misty-eyed over Dubya when his approval rating was high. The only thing that is high in the country (other than the deficit) is the level of denial about this administration. Well, I guess the only consolation is that this denial belongs to 34% or so of this country – and these are the very rich, religious right.
The Repugs are desperate. They are the terrosists.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:51 pmActually, Brian, the IRA was pretty much destroyed as an effective terrorist organization by the British through an effective system of intelligence, assassination of terrorist leaders, and para-military operations….So, I am not quite sure what your point is…
July 16th, 2006 at 12:51 pmWhat is the sound of one Norwegian talking to himself?
July 16th, 2006 at 12:52 pmHow can any one in the world believe what a woman with dead eyes has to say. Add to that her constant lieing for her evil bosses and we have spewing of more evil. Killing for peace, invasion for dominance, all like screwing for virginity……This bunch in the bull shit bush administration should all be jailed and brought up on charges of war crimes and treason against america and the world….All this mess in the middle east is just what they wanted, they back it and promote it…..They intend to create their armagedon and the world is drug along into their evil plans……Israels agression is just the latest. Rove and the evil mindset of this administration is if plan A isn’t working and it isn’t,(Iraq), create and back another war….Plan B. They want to take Iran and have wanted to for some time, use rice and the bush regime to try and sway the world to back Israel and kill more innocents in Lebanon and Palestine…..Last count Israel losses 12…….Lebanon innocents, men women and children 82……Give me a break, trolls and roaches, wake the f*** up. People are dieing all over the world because of the hatred and greed of our government…….We have become the enemy. Rather it is through apathy or brain washing we still are the problem and untill we get the evil out of our own gov. nothing is going to get better……Blessings, the world needs them.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:52 pmDrSinker,
#86
Look at post #87
He doesn’t go away. He was probably eating something and just got back.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:54 pmHey Condi, weren’t you the National Security Advisor on 9/11/01? Were you asleep at the wheel? I could have sworn I heard that you said that Saddam Hussein was sucessfully ‘contained’ by the continuing sanctions on him, paired with the daily enforcement of the ‘No Fly Zone’ policy, and the regular bombing, just to be certain that he was clear on the detailsof his part of the bargain. And Condi’s VERY OWN CHART showed that she already knew that there was no connection between Al Queda, and Iraq, Because it was not mentioned at all on her chart. So Condi, are you trying to tell us that you BLEW IT? According to YOU, the Aug. 6th,, 2001 ‘PDB’ about terrorists intentions to attack us, “bin Laden, determined tu attack…” was a ‘historical’ document, at least, that’s what you said, under oath. Care to address that little ‘boo-boo of yours? “Grotesque”, yeah you would know ALL about THAT, wouldn’t you? You just screwed up every single opportunity to prevent 9/11/2001, and typically, instead of being willing to face reality, and discussing the matter, in a professional, dignified fashion, you just start insulting people instead. Way to go, Condi. It’s all about you, isn’t it? Been shoe shopping lately?
July 16th, 2006 at 12:55 pm#82, Brian, This “troll” thing is just so tired. Some people come here because they are interested in hearing what the “other side” is thinking (Much of it, I must confress, is downright nutty!) and for some legitimate debate…So, yes, I would be very interested in some serious, level-headed alternate suggestions for dealing with the problem of Islamic terrorism…
July 16th, 2006 at 12:55 pmBoth of those are terrorists. They are intentionally blowing up markets.
Insurgents attack the police and military. Learn to tell the difference. DOn’t fall into their trap.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:55 pmLOL Seixon I have nothing to hide, but why should I email you to get more abuse? You are so paranoid about TP posters, but Bush you think is great and that creepo is the one most likely watching you! Must be to make sure you are worth the expense to get paid to post on here?!
July 16th, 2006 at 12:56 pmook at post #87
He doesn’t go away. He was probably eating something and just got back. -Spudge
I’ve seen it. What in his post has any substance though? Nothing at all. He’s been reduced to personal attacks – calling us all cowards – the standard Republican trick. Let’s declare a victory and move on I say.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:56 pmDrSinker,
I’m sad to say that I held you in higher regard than most here. It seems I was wrong.
Spudge_Boy,
Why yes, I was eating something. Us Rovian trolls have to take breaks now and then from infiltrating left-wing breeding grounds with our right-wing anti-Christ agenda. Rove doesn’t pay me $15,000 per hour for nothing. Debating electricity and potable water with Think Progress commenters is well worth the money.
July 16th, 2006 at 12:57 pmLeaving aside your silly comment that “we are killing Muslims PERIOD,â€
We kill people. Period. Is that better?
I would ask what you would do about the problem of Islamic terrorism, MNW
Islamic terrorism is not the problem. It’s a symptom of the problem. How’s that for a start?
….It’s really astonishing…Over 60 postings here (and hundreds in other threads) and I don’t think I have ever read anyone here offer an alternative policy for dealing with the very real problem that there are groups of Islamic militants out there who have already — and want to continue — to slaughter thousands of American civilians…
There are thousands and thousands of people killed in car crashes every year. What should we do about the problem of people driving cars?
There’s no difference in your silly notion that “the problem” is Islamic militants.
All I read is criticism (most of it juvenile), but never any alternates. Anyone out there have anything constructive to say?
Juveniles ignore reality and choose instead to believe their fantasies. The “faith-based” community is much more juvenile than the reality-based one. But I’m sure you won’t recognize that fact…as you’re too wrapped up in your fantasies.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:00 pmJay,
Again, you play the victim when I have no reason to “abuse” you about anything. I have legitimate questions to ask you, but you keep stone-walling. You always project the actions of Think Progress commenters onto the Bush administration because you can’t fess up. If you’re not hiding anything, why not drop me a line so we can have a chat about the events that took place a couple weeks ago?
DrSinker,
Personal attacks? Yes, when none of you debate on the merits and instead insinuate I’m a paid troll and tell everyone to ignore me, then I will call you what you are: cowards. There was no reason why you should treat my comments the way you are other than being afraid of responding because what you said was invalid.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:00 pmI didn’t say there was substance. You said he went away. He posted the very next post. He did not go away because people were ignoring him. He is a paid professional. He will always come back. Always. ANd until he is banned by Judd, I will continue to attack his lies.
Like the fact that he doesn’t think Reagan sold Saddam VX nerve gas to use against the Iraninas.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:00 pm#101…So, despite your rather lengthy posting, you have no concrete proposals for dealing with the problem of Islamic terrorism….Gotcha. Next? (I’ll wait for Brian to offer a more substantive reply).
July 16th, 2006 at 1:02 pmActually, Brian, the IRA was pretty much destroyed as an effective terrorist organization by the British through an effective system of intelligence, assassination of terrorist leaders, and para-military operations….So, I am not quite sure what your point is…
No argument there. They pushed the boat out it’s true, but you will also note that they did not :
a) Bomb Dublin airport.
b) blockade Dublin port.
c) Invade the South killing hundreds or thousands of civilians.
Kill hundreds of Irish civilians every time the IRA killed British soldiers, or blew up bits of London, or Manchester, or the financial centre of Britian. God knows there was provocation enough by the ludicrous standard applied by the Isrealies and the US.
If the British had responded as the US has done, both countries would be wrecked, and I say that as an Irishman aware of occasional British lapses.
All of the above are the hallmarks of succesful efforts to eradicate terrorism.
Exley let me refer you to posts #68 and #76. Collectivley they address why
a) Blowing stuff up is a bad response to terrorism.
b) How terrorism should be tackled.
I would tack on the observation that binding international law prohibiting war, period would be a good idea. As well as noting that terrorisim should always be dealt with as a police matter. That means the “police” be they UN troops, american troops whatever is agreed, put there lives on the line to protect all innocent parties.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:02 pmSpudge,
He is a paid professional.
Who’s paying me? How much? How do you know this? Oh wait, you’re just full of shit, as always. Your’re a smear artist.
Like the fact that he doesn’t think Reagan sold Saddam VX nerve gas to use against the Iraninas.
Point to a single piece of evidence showing this to be the case then, dear sir. I have seen none.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:04 pmLOL Seixon > to clarify: Karl Rove pays you the Norwegian minimum wage whatever that is > lol.
I have NO idea what you want to know about that occured a couple of weeks ago on TP? Are you referring to some of your posts being deleted by Judd? Just so you know he deletes some posts for everyone on here > if he thinks a post is off-subject or too vile for the thread! Get over it or post elsewhere?!
July 16th, 2006 at 1:07 pmAt least I am an artist. That implies I am really good at it. Thanks.
Now the horse has deon been beat dead. I don’t need to go over 20 years of history for you.
Or post this image again do I?
Friends to the end.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:07 pmShe does it for the shoes. She’s got to have the shoes.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:08 pmYeah, Condi, you’re half right: it’s grotesque, but it ain’t a notion, it’s fact. How do you think we’d like a foreign power coming in to our towns and killing people (including a few of our family members, friends and neighbors) in the name of what that foreign power thought was best for us? (Hey, and nice link to Iraq and 9/11!) Oh, and just who is confronting whose extremism? There are many ways to deal with extemism other than just trying to outdo them at their own game, you simpleton neocon nitwit (triple redundancy intended).
July 16th, 2006 at 1:09 pmSeixon:
GIVE ‘EM ‘ELL.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:09 pmBrian,
I would tack on the observation that binding international law prohibiting war, period would be a good idea.
And you’d expect the Hitlers and Stalins of the world to follow this? You’re basically giving the dictators of the world their wet dream.
As well as noting that terrorisim should always be dealt with as a police matter.
Again, doing nothing to actually stop terrorism, its causes, etc, but just waiting around for terrorists to kill people and then try to find those responsible afterwards? Oh wait, they usually kill themselves. Damn.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:10 pmSilence IS an answer.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — July 16, 2006 @ 12:44 pm
Do as you will. I do understand.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:10 pmyou have no concrete proposals for dealing with the problem of Islamic terrorism
There’s no point in discussing something that isn’t “the problem”.
Would you like to discuss the “problem” of people driving cars? Neither do I.
Until you, and the rest of your ilk, get over your FEAR of Islamic terrorists, we will never come up with the solutions to resolve the REAL problems in the Middle East…the problems that create Islamic terrorists in the first place. So go right ahead, keep on believing what Bush, et al, want you to believe…that Islamic terrorists are “the problem”…and your fear will contonue to rule over you.
What are the similiarities between the forces that create Islamic terrorists and the forces that create Irish-Catholic terrorists? Besides a delusional belief in religious tenets.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:12 pmComment by Briseadh na Faire — July 16, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
Whats with the Gaelic? Just curious:-)
July 16th, 2006 at 1:12 pm#94 cyra brown
July 16th, 2006 at 1:13 pmI think Rise is hoping that people won’t remember what she said 4 and 5 years ago.
Thanks for bringing it up here today.
Note how she managed to bring “9/11″ into her defense today also – that will be the mantra in the fall campaign – remember 9/11, be afraid, trust only us.
Omigod! Not only is this the worst most failed administration that we are paying for with our taxes – the lives, treasure, esteem, and credibility lost through their arrogant ineptitude and neglect, hubris and ignorance is inestimable.
Jay,
Karl Rove pays you the Norwegian minimum wage whatever that is > lol.
Keep on lying, it’s all you have.
I have NO idea what you want to know about that occured a couple of weeks ago on TP? Are you referring to some of your posts being deleted by Judd?
Oh Jay, now you’re just lying some more. You know very well what I want to talk about. I want to talk about the sudden outburst of people divulging personal details about me, and your obsession with those personal details before this happened.
Spudge,
At least I am an artist. That implies I am really good at it. Thanks.
So all artists are good?
Or post this image again do I?
Aha, so Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein proves that Reagan sold Iraq VX gas. I wonder what this image proves then. Got any ideas?
July 16th, 2006 at 1:14 pmWhat are the stains on that suit? Eh, George?
July 16th, 2006 at 1:14 pmOver 60 postings here (and hundreds in other threads) and I don’t think I have ever read anyone here offer an alternative policy for dealing with the very real problem that there are groups of Islamic militants out there who have already — and want to continue — to slaughter thousands of American civilians
Heres some radical ideas
How about stopping our foreign policy of, do what we want, when we want, and how we want. How about not overthrowing Democratically elected Governments, overtly and covertly. How about getting our troops off their “holy land”. How about not trying to dictate to other Governments, what we would never accept from those same Governments. How about working with Governments to stop terrorists, instead of pissing them off.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:16 pmSexion,
Shoot the messenger? Who’s lying here? Brookings is nothing more than the mouth of the right, with well known associations of other groups such as AEI, Fux News, and as the first paragraph states most people working at brookings are EX-Govt employees. I shot your message, but go ahead make some claim I attacked the messenger. and if “Brookings” was the messenger, well they’re nothing more than necons spreading their thoughts. If the Brookings institue had any crediblity as an independent think tank, half of their members should not be ex NSA and White House employees. Just more probaganda.. Well keep believing it fool.
You’re so predictable, you’re not even funny.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:18 pmAkaDad,
How about not allowing our president to say stupid shit like “Bring it on!”
July 16th, 2006 at 1:19 pmComment by Exley — July 16, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/15/is-the-us-winning-in-iraq/#comments
Comment #21, last paragraph. You must have missed it.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:20 pmIf a match were held to the gas spewing forth from Condyloma’s mouth one would find that it would explode since it and a fart are composed of the same substance. Thus the moniker, Dragon Mouth Rice. Satan’s Daughter giving Adolf Bush a flogging dressed in black dominatrix leather drag, thong and stilletto heals is such a fitting picture.
This Oreo is a complete disgrace to the black community and should be burnt in effigy by the NAACP just to make a point.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:20 pmInteresting to see how this thread has devolved. I bet nobody here could have predicted that, nor the cause. Wait a minute….
July 16th, 2006 at 1:22 pmSeixon > you have made enemies on here, by attacking people, so they researched on Google to find about who you are! Your name is mentioned in several right-wing blog attacks, such as ones calling the Brit Gallaway a liar, so that means you are paid to smear people! Tell us about your hit pieces in the American Spectator magazine, which is funded by Richerd Mellon Scaife the right wing turd, who helped Ken Starr to uncover the Monica affair with Bill? For somebody at the young age of 24/25 you do have strange associations! Nobody has an obsession with you!
July 16th, 2006 at 1:24 pmAnd Seixon whomever called your parents, as you claim, dislikes you more than I do! I have NO idea who called your parents, but you did say his name is “John Dean” > nobody I know, so go talk to that guy please, and stop bothering us on TP!
July 16th, 2006 at 1:29 pmIf Seixon isn’t a paid troll, then he is a whacko (Jack Abramoff’s words, not mine) Crusader. Either way crazy as batshit.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:31 pmAkaDad,
None of that has anything to do with why al Qaeda is doing what they are doing. They want a Muslim caliphate, a Muslim supernation, a vehicle to subvert Christianity and all other religions, convert everyone to Islam, and kill the rest. That’s what these people want to do, although fairly far-fetched given our efforts to ruin all their dreams, that’s what they want to do. If Osama bin Laden were given nukes, that’s what he would do with them.
DenverDem,
OK, look. You had a chance, now you’re done.
Shoot the messenger? Who’s lying here?
Well, either you are gullible or lying, just watch.
Brookings is nothing more than the mouth of the right, with well known associations of other groups such as AEI, Fux News, and as the first paragraph states most people working at brookings are EX-Govt employees.
So that’s why the president of Brookings Institute is a former Clinton administration official, a very good friend of Bill Clinton? Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State from 1993-2000 is a “mouth of the right”?
You are you trying to fool? Yourself?
I shot your message, but go ahead make some claim I attacked the messenger.
You shot the messenger, Brookings Institute. You didn’t go after the statistics I brought up at all, you went after Brookings. In order to do so, you used an obviously partisan source and then either lied or misread what that source says. Then you ignored the fact that it is filled with Clinton people, just like Think Progress and Center for American Progress.
and if “Brookings†was the messenger, well they’re nothing more than necons spreading their thoughts.
Ah yes, so the husband of Diane Feinstein is a neo-con?
JFK and LBJ’s Secretary of Defense is a neo-con?
Can you even find a single person on the Brookings Board of trustees that is a neo-con? You’re making yourself look like a fool.
If the Brookings institue had any crediblity as an independent think tank, half of their members should not be ex NSA and White House employees. Just more probaganda.. Well keep believing it fool.
Which NSA and which White House? Democrats and the Clinton administration. Yeah, that’s neo-con right-wing mouth pieces for sure.
Your source, the Voltaire Network, says on their web page that al Zarqawi is a product of US propaganda. Now even after he has been killed and al Qaeda has decried his killing!
LOL
July 16th, 2006 at 1:34 pmSpeaking of regional instability, here’s a little background history on the U.S. contribution to peace in the middle east:
http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=3441
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/graverlj.html
http://houseoflabor.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/11/19/82552/557
http://www.sundayherald.com/print27572
http://www.meta-religion.com/Secret_societies/Conspiracies/Middle_East/middle_eastern_chessboard-i.htm
July 16th, 2006 at 1:35 pmWell DrSinker the thread is up to over 130 posts, so this one will probably go to 500 before being retired > lol.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:40 pmDrSinker,
Interesting to see how this thread has devolved. I bet nobody here could have predicted that, nor the cause. Wait a minute….
You have only yourself to blame. When you guys can’t debate like adults and instead focus on calling me a troll and alleging lies about me, then there’s no wonder the debate starts revolving around that. If you had just responded to my comments like an adult and had a real debate, we’d be talking about Iraq and the importance of Saddam’s demise seen in the light of the current situation. Instead you and the others chose to smear me and make that the subject.
Randal,
Seixon > you have made enemies on here, by attacking people, so they researched on Google to find about who you are!
Projection, again. You guys attacked me for the sin of having a different opinion.
Your name is mentioned in several right-wing blog attacks, such as ones calling the Brit Gallaway a liar, so that means you are paid to smear people!
That’s because Galloway is a liar, and it doesn’t take anyone to get paid to point out that simple fact. You’re delusional Randal if you think that every single exposure of liars on the left are done by people who are paid. Some of us really care about the truth and will expose it without being paid to do so.
Tell us about your hit pieces in the American Spectator magazine, which is funded by Richerd Mellon Scaife the right wing turd, who helped Ken Starr to uncover the Monica affair with Bill?
Hit-piece? You mean when I proved that Galloway is a lying liar? That’s not a hit-piece, as I was simply exposing Galloway’s lies to the Senate. A journalist from the Spectator contacted me about it and wanted to do a story on it. Now, if progressive and liberal sites weren’t busy kissing Galloway’s feet for having the balls to talk shit to the Senate while evading, lying, and slandering, maybe they too would have asked me about it as well.
For somebody at the young age of 24/25 you do have strange associations! Nobody has an obsession with you!
Strong associations? I write things, and people contact me about them. If the NY Times wanted to write about something I wrote, fine, I don’t care who it is.
And Seixon whomever called your parents, as you claim, dislikes you more than I do!
Yes, although you were talking about my parents first on here.
I have NO idea who called your parents, but you did say his name is “John Dean†> nobody I know, so go talk to that guy please, and stop bothering us on TP!
Again, we could be having this discussion per email instead of cluttering Think Progress. I think everyone else here would agree that you should email me so we can discuss this matter privately instead of clogging up the forum here.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:41 pm#131
None of that has anything to do with why al Qaeda is doing what they are doing.
I guess then, that they are lying, when they repeatedly say, our foreign policy of interfering in the Middle East, is why they hate us.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:43 pmSpudge,
If Seixon isn’t a paid troll, then he is a whacko (Jack Abramoff’s words, not mine) Crusader. Either way crazy as batshit.
So, let me know when you feel like responding to #120.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:43 pmAkaDad,
I guess then, that they are lying, when they repeatedly say, our foreign policy of interfering in the Middle East, is why they hate us.
Oh man. Yes, because Osama bin Laden is an honest little guy, isn’t he? Jesus Friggin Christ. Is the word propaganda completely lost on you? See, you believe every word Osama bin Laden says, but you don’t believe anything Bush says. You just proved it. Good grief.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:45 pmMs. Rice is a professional liar, right? what surprises you about her statements? Maybe we could just submit them for analysis, get 5 or 10 opinions as to what she is saying and to whom, and we can have some fun training our children in how our government lies to us and everyone else.
maybe our children will get tired of the lies and BS that we have handed them. Oh shit, forgot. You would have to change a whole lot of institutional lying for this to take. Since all the institutions are lying constantly, we have a problem.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:45 pmLOL Seixon you mentioned the personal stuff on here first, so it gets aired on TP for everybody! I have never said anything about your parents > I do not care anything about them! Thanks for confirming that you have helped with American Spectator hit pieces! And claiming you do that for FREE does NOT pass the smell test!
July 16th, 2006 at 1:47 pmThe middle east has been in turmoil since Biblical times. However, the introduction of the “nuclear era” has brought all things relative to the middle east to a head. I really believe, this is the last chance for not only the middle east, but for Asia and eastern Europe to bring common sense to a region set on the destruction of ALL whom disagree with them. It’s even more dangerous when regimes in the middle east use religion for their insane motives.
The United States sees this. I can’t understand why countries that border the middle east, Russia and China to name two, continue to play games with the issues now at hand. I can understand why the “left” in the U.S. are blinded by the dangers that exsists, its easy living on the other side of the planet…
July 16th, 2006 at 1:53 pmJust so you know Seixon, I knew David Brook who was a right wing attack dog for Scaife, untill he saw the light and apologized to President Clinton > did you take his place?
July 16th, 2006 at 1:53 pmIn the blizzard of Seixon spam, you may have missed this Exley. I didn’t see a response?
Actually, Brian, the IRA was pretty much destroyed as an effective terrorist organization by the British through an effective system of intelligence, assassination of terrorist leaders, and para-military operations….So, I am not quite sure what your point is…
No argument there. They pushed the boat out it’s true, but you will also note that they did not :
a) Bomb Dublin airport.
b) blockade Dublin port.
c) Invade the South killing hundreds or thousands of civilians.
Kill hundreds of Irish civilians every time the IRA killed British soldiers, or blew up bits of London, or Manchester, or the financial centre of Britian. God knows there was provocation enough by the ludicrous standard applied by the Isrealies and the US.
If the British had responded as the US has done, both countries would be wrecked, and I say that as an Irishman aware of occasional British lapses.
All of the above are the hallmarks of succesful efforts to eradicate terrorism.
Exley let me refer you to posts #68 and #76. Collectivley they address why
a) Blowing stuff up is a bad response to terrorism.
b) How terrorism should be tackled.
I would tack on the observation that binding international law prohibiting war, period would be a good idea. As well as noting that terrorisim should always be dealt with as a police matter. That means the “police†be they UN troops, american troops whatever is agreed, put there lives on the line to protect all innocent parties.
Comment by Brian Coughlan — July 16, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
July 16th, 2006 at 1:54 pmCertain people in this country aren’t going to wake up until a “dirty nuke” or “real nuke” goes off in this country. Then half of those are going to play THE DAMN CONSPIRACY THEORY GAME OUT OF THEIR ASS, just like they have here on TP with 9/11. “The buildings didn’t fall a certain way”, “NORAD was stand down”, I’ve heard a little bit of everything on TP about how “the conspiracy theories” are FACT.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:58 pmRandal,
LOL Seixon you mentioned the personal stuff on here first, so it gets aired on TP for everybody!
Again, you keep lying. I said that I lived in Norway, that’s all I have divulged about myself here.
I have never said anything about your parents > I do not care anything about them!
Another lie. You wrote this about a month ago:
Seixon if your parents are not GOP conservatives, then they have raised you wrong because you turned into one > lol.
Thanks for confirming that you have helped with American Spectator hit pieces! And claiming you do that for FREE does NOT pass the smell test!
They’re not hit-pieces, they are articles that expose Galloway as a liar. Anyone with eyes can see that I “helped” Spectator with those pieces, when in fact I was the one who broke the story, and Clint Taylor of Spectator wanted to write about it, so he contacted me and I let him carry my story.
You can keep alleging I am paid for this and that, but it’s just slanderous lies.
Randal, seriously, email me so we can do this in private. There is no need to have this all over this thread.
July 16th, 2006 at 2:00 pm#137
Is the word propaganda completely lost on you? See, you believe every word Osama bin Laden says, but you don’t believe anything Bush says. You just proved it. Good grief.
So when terrorists proclaim what their motivations are, they are lying? The IRA, abortion clinic bombers, the Unabomber, Mcveigh, and Osama are all lying about why they are willing to cross the line and commit terror?
You have no critical thinking abilities, you just proved it.
July 16th, 2006 at 2:01 pmIn the blizzard of Seixon spam, you may have missed this Exley. I didn’t see a response?
Actually, Brian, the IRA was pretty much destroyed as an effective terrorist organization by the British through an effective system of intelligence, assassination of terrorist leaders, and para-military operations….So, I am not quite sure what your point is…
No argument there. They pushed the boat out it’s true, but you will also note that they did not :
a) Bomb Dublin airport.
b) blockade Dublin port.
c) Invade the South killing hundreds or thousands of civilians.
Kill hundreds of Irish civilians every time the IRA killed British soldiers, or blew up bits of London, or Manchester, or the financial centre of Britian. God knows there was provocation enough by the ludicrous standard applied by the Isrealies and the US.
If the British had responded as the US has done, both countries would be wrecked, and I say that as an Irishman aware of occasional British lapses.
All of the above are the hallmarks of succesful efforts to eradicate terrorism.
Exley let me refer you to posts #68 and #76. Collectivley they address why
a) Blowing stuff up is a bad response to terrorism.
b) How terrorism should be tackled.
I would tack on the observation that binding international law prohibiting war, period would be a good idea. As well as noting that terrorisim should always be dealt with as a police matter. That means the “police†be they UN troops, american troops whatever is agreed, put there lives on the line to protect all innocent parties.
Comment by Brian Coughlan — July 16, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
July 16th, 2006 at 2:01 pmFuthermore, just because someone has a different view than you, that doesn’t make them a “neo-con, a fascists, neo nazi, liberal, conservative, quaker, ect. ect”. Debate facts. Name calling? Getting personal? Yeah, you support your arguments well when you do those things.
July 16th, 2006 at 2:03 pmSo Exley …. nothing further to add?
July 16th, 2006 at 2:04 pmSeixon >Someone named “John Dean” you claim called your parents, so contact him! I do believe you have been raised wrong, but other than that I could care less! Stop claiming that you help the American Spectator magazine for free > you get paid to help them or you are way dumber than anyone can imagine?! I have nothing more to say about this subject to you!
July 16th, 2006 at 2:07 pmCondi is supposed to be very well informed on the subject of Russia, she is considered an “expert” by BushCo. Did she tell GWB that Putin could be trusted? And that made looking deeply into his eyes (and soul) the new standard for assessing the ‘credibility’ of world leaders? Considering the really quite staggering array of horrid errors of judgment made by GWB, but that are NEVER his fault, or his responsibility, any choice to accept his “word” on anything at all, just boggles the mind, and creates an inability to respect their reasoning as well. And how is it that Condi is oblivious to the similarity of all the current fighting we are witnessing, each incident involves a ‘terrorist’ organization. Must be a MAJOR coincidence, I mean, what are the odds of that happening, all at the same time, yet being totally unrelated to each other?!? I call BULLSH*T!!
July 16th, 2006 at 2:09 pm#79 Ex; You want an alternative? Bring ALL the troops home, leave Iraq for the Iraqis as they do NOT want us there. If you aren’t part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.
July 16th, 2006 at 2:11 pmLets remember what the thread is about. The utterly ludicrous assertion that killing 100,000 civilians, wrecking the infrastructure of Iraq and placing 130,000 American soldiers within spitting distance of Iran and then threatening that country, has “nothing to do” with the current instability.
Phew!!! That is denial for you.
July 16th, 2006 at 2:15 pmAkaDad,
Osama bin Laden has stated what I said his aims are. However, most of the time he uses these fake issues to get support, such as the “infidels” being in Saudi Arabia, or now us being in Iraq. Propagandists use whatever current event they can and use it to support their real aims. Our war in Iraq is not the reason for why Osama bin Laden is doing anything. His real reason is what I stated, his aims for a Muslim superpower, the caliphate. Everything else is just window dressing.
And I wouldn’t compare Osama bin Laden to every other terrorist ever in history. That is a bit lacking logic. Not all terrorists are the same, so I don’t see why you would argue that they would have to be.
Randal,
You’re a liar and clearly have things to hide. That’s about all I need to say. Unlike you, I don’t charge for exposing liars as liars. I do that for free. Why don’t you inquire with American Spectator or Clint Taylor if you’re so obsessed with painting me as a paid stooge? You have nothing to show for your lies.
July 16th, 2006 at 2:17 pmLets remember what the thread is about. The utterly ludicrous assertion that killing 100,000 civilians, wrecking the infrastructure of Iraq and placing 130,000 American soldiers within spitting distance of Iran and then threatening that country, has “nothing to do†with the current instability.
Phew!!! That is denial for you.
July 16th, 2006 at 2:18 pmBrian,
Hezbollah and the rest have been bombing Israelis and conducting terrorism there for ages. It didn’t start yesterday. Israel decided lately that they weren’t going to take it anymore. With the US sitting in Iraq, they have the confidence that Iran will not try anything. Syria is also neutered due to the US sitting right by them, and the fact that the UN is on their nuts about the Hariri assassination.
All of this stuff has been going on for decades.
July 16th, 2006 at 2:19 pmLol Seixon you have been exposed as a massive liar on here, many times, by numerous posters! If you helped the American Spectator magazine for free, then you are truely the dumbest fool on this planet, because they pay big money for smears like you provided them!
I have nothing to hide, so cut the crap, and I wish the Democrats paid for me to post on here > lol > they are to cheap to pay anybody, but the GOP pay lots of $$$$!
July 16th, 2006 at 2:23 pmWith the US sitting in Iraq, they have the confidence that Iran will not try anything.
Proof positive indeed.
July 16th, 2006 at 2:23 pmPLEASE! Condi run for president. PLEASE!
July 16th, 2006 at 2:24 pmRandal,
Lol Seixon you have been exposed as a massive liar on here, many times, by numerous posters!
Name a single one, liar.
If you helped the American Spectator magazine for free, then you are truely the dumbest fool on this planet, because they pay big money for smears like you provided them!
Exposing Galloway as a liar is not a smear. I care about revealing the truth, and I don’t need to be paid to do it. If that makes me dumb, I think that shows you are a hypocrite.
I have nothing to hide, so cut the crap, and I wish the Democrats paid for me to post on here > lol > they are to cheap to pay anybody, but the GOP pay lots of $$$$!
If you don’t have anything to hide, then email me. It’s that simple.
July 16th, 2006 at 2:25 pmPeople …. lets remember what the thread is about. The utterly ludicrous assertion that killing 100,000 civilians, wrecking the infrastructure of Iraq and placing 130,000 American soldiers within spitting distance of Iran and then threatening that country, has “nothing to do†with the current instability.
Phew!!! That is denial for you.
July 16th, 2006 at 2:28 pmBrian,
1. We haven’t killed 100,000 Iraqis.
2. We haven’t wrecked the infrastructure of Iraq, a good bit of it is better now than before the war. The problem spot continues to be central Iraq, aka Baghdad.
3. Since when did we threaten Iran?
The instability comes from Hezbollah taking actions against Israel, along with Hamas. Is there any evidence that none of this would happened if we were not in Iraq, and Saddam was still sitting pretty on his throne? In fact, if Saddam was still there, he would be financing these Hamas terrorists like he was doing before we took him out.
July 16th, 2006 at 2:30 pmWell, now that the violence in the Middle East has escalated dramatically today, when is GWB going to get off his ass and stop the Israelis from this slaughter. Sure, Hamas and Hezbollah have done a hell of a lot wrong, but that doesn’t justify what Israel is now doing. Israel’s actions are gross overkill (literally).
July 16th, 2006 at 2:34 pmLOL Seixon I am going to contact David Brook > he has a anti-GOP blog now and he worked for the American Spectator in the 1990s when Clinton was president! You were foolish to tie into that right-wing magazine that spews trash and smears!
I have to do other things today, then hang out on TP threads, but you will be on here till 1:00 or 2:00AM Eastern time, but 7:00 or 8:00AM Norwegian time, so bye for now!
This thread will be over 400 posts by this evening, so I will check it out later!
July 16th, 2006 at 2:34 pmWilly,
You’ll notice that Saudi Arabia has scolded Hezbollah, not Israel. Tide’s a’changing.
July 16th, 2006 at 2:35 pmJay,
LOL Seixon I am going to contact David Brook > he has a anti-GOP blog now and he worked for the American Spectator in the 1990s when Clinton was president! You were foolish to tie into that right-wing magazine that spews trash and smears!
Go right on ahead. Are you talking about David Brooks? I have no idea who David Brook is. The article that was printed from my research was not trash or a smear. You keep avoiding that because you are just smearing me because you have nothing else to bring to the table. Talk about a hypocrite.
July 16th, 2006 at 2:37 pmthan not then > typo > lol > bye all and beware of the Norwegian!
July 16th, 2006 at 2:38 pmBrian,
I couldn’t agree with your last post (#160) more. Take my advice and that of others here, and don’t take Seixon’s bait.
July 16th, 2006 at 2:38 pmI can understand why the “left†in the U.S. are blinded by the dangers that exsists, its easy living on the other side of the planet…
Comment by COMMENT BY JIM — July 16, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
The “left” isn’t “blinded by the dangers that exist”…we’re quite aware of the dangers…we just disagree about the solution.
The “right” in the US is blinded by their FEAR of the dangers that exist, and can’t develop any solution other than “stay the course”…which solves absolutely nothing.
July 16th, 2006 at 2:40 pmDrSinker,
Tell me again why I am talking to people about being a paid troll? Is that because of my actions, or yours? Why am I talking about George Galloway? Is that because of me, or you guys?
There would be no “bait” if you people just debated like adults.
July 16th, 2006 at 2:46 pmBrian – sorry I missed this earlier:
I saw the phrase when I was beginning to learn about and follow a different path. It seemed to fit. It means “Break of Dawn.”
July 16th, 2006 at 2:53 pmIs it illegal to fantasize about shooting someone?
July 16th, 2006 at 2:53 pmLucinda,
Thanks for echoing my sentiments – appreciated. Incidentally, Gingrich is being discussed on a new thread here at TP.
July 16th, 2006 at 2:59 pmLucinda,
OH MY GOD! Seixon is back on this thread, spouting insanity, confusion, and misinformation. DrSinker #167 is right. Don’t bother with Seixon.
Smear me, smear me, smear me. All you folks do. Put up or shut up Lucinda.
July 16th, 2006 at 3:00 pmI posted this yesterday – but for those who haven’t seen it, here it is…
The 32% – http://www.peacetakescourage.com/32.html
July 16th, 2006 at 3:05 pmPart two - http://www.peacetakescourage.com/32part2.html
July 16th, 2006 at 3:06 pmsomone ought to collect the postings of those poor lost souls and their hatred for 60% of this country.
July 16th, 2006 at 3:09 pmthanks mad.
July 16th, 2006 at 3:14 pmThe more they use 9/11 like that, the more desensitized Americans will be to it, and the more they will forget what it was all about. It will backfire on them.
Condi, if anything is grotesque it’s your “little” war in Iraq, you grotesque whore.
July 16th, 2006 at 3:26 pmBtw, any shoe sales this weekend?
Lucinda,
So please go stuff your self-centered egotisical attitude. It’s not about you, Seixon.
It shouldn’t be but it always ends up being about me. I don’t want it to be, but just take a look at this thread and see who’s fault it is. If you guys stop smearing me and just debate me like adults, none of this will happen.
You talk about shades of 1914, although the two situations are completely different. Unless you are trying to say that the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas (would have tacked on Iraq here but oops, Saddam’s Hamas funding is over) is like one of the sides in WWI??
July 16th, 2006 at 3:32 pm[...] Progress for the transcript) Filed Under: War coverage, This Week, Condi Trackback Permalink postCount(’10018980′); | EMail ThisPost [...]
July 16th, 2006 at 3:39 pmAs I stated earlier, we all face a grave dangerous situation in the Middle East. We have certainly learned since March 2003 that it is easier to start a war than to end a war, which becomes more grim by the hour.
This is the looming reality. Bush and his idiot hordes have been playing with matches, and now it looks like someone is going to get burned, perhaps a lot of someones. Bush and his cronies are to blame for it all from start to finish.
July 16th, 2006 at 3:42 pmWe are propelling toward a very dangerous time. Does anyone out there know what happened in Europe in 1914? It’s a good time to drag out a history text and read how Europe spun into WAR in six week chaotic weeks. WWI started on August 3, 1914 and the lights went out in Europe.
Comment by Lucinda — July 16, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
An excellent reminder, thanks Lucinda.
July 16th, 2006 at 3:44 pmI would be very interested in some serious, level-headed alternate suggestions for dealing with the problem of Islamic terrorism…
1. Find an alternative to OIL.
July 16th, 2006 at 3:47 pm2. Stop selling our arms to Israel.
3. GTF out of where we are NOT wanted.
I posted this elsewhere but here it is again:
July 16th, 2006 at 4:00 pmI simply do not understand why Lebanon is being punished. Lebanon has been an occupied country for the last 40 years. Lebanon has only a rudimentary fighting force that was in the process of rebuilding after Syria withdrew most of its forces when Israel tore into its very infrastructure. If Israel only had the common sense to take out only the Hezbollah forces occupying Lebanon, and not civilians, disturbances would spiral down over time. The insane acts by Israel have only served to lengthen that process.
The act yesterday of persuading civilians to leave Marwaheen in southern Lebanon and then bombing them on the way out is an autocracy of the nth degree.
- WaltTheMan:
If Israel only had the common sense to take out only the Hezbollah forces occupying Lebanon, and not civilians, disturbances would spiral down over time. The insane acts by Israel have only served to lengthen that process.
You still seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that Israel’s goal is to end the strife and safeguard their people. A critical look at Israel’s history will show you that their actual goal is far different.
July 16th, 2006 at 4:06 pm[...] Update: The Dominatrix speaks. [...]
July 16th, 2006 at 4:18 pmI think Condi meant to say that it was grotesque to think that by bringing democracy to Iraq democracy would spread to the whole region.
July 16th, 2006 at 4:43 pmWith politicians so full of their ideology no-one should expect a positive role of the Bush regime in the search for a solution.
Does anybody really think that Israel wants this to stop this is there national income It comes from the Billions we give them to be a Military state theres nothing else that supports them other than war they have no way of having an income after all they beleive there Gods Choosen so they have a right to do whatever they choose and the Evangelical cult in this country will support this madness its all becoming a sad state for Humanity due to a few of truly insane people on all sides when will mankind give up on medevil religion?
July 16th, 2006 at 4:54 pmGrotesque is it? Well Condi Rice you and the Company you keep are grotesque
July 16th, 2006 at 4:54 pm#187 – TripMaster Monkey,
July 16th, 2006 at 5:04 pmI agree, but people are dying for the ambitions of a few extremely greedy people. The saying in the old testament says “An eye for an eye…”, not “A thousand eyes for one eye…”. The new testament has a saying that has been paraphrased into “Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.”. It is unfortunate that Israelis do not believe in either testament.
Who knew that Condi’s mistaken invasion of Iraq would increase tensions in the area?
July 16th, 2006 at 5:07 pmCondi Rice has been a complete failure as sec’y of state. She went to Israel and used her sex as a talking point. She flirted with Sharon, who played along withe the game. She bends over and points her butt at the old geezers sitting behind her. She crosses her legs and exposes her thighs to the point of revealing her underwear and probably thinks she is cute, and wears sexy boots to seduce those old geezers. This, she thinks is “diplomacy”. She is in over her head, trying to play the “it” girl and when that does not work, she adopts the severe stare, thinking it makes her lookd tough and at the same time “intelligent”. She was absent during the horror of Katrina–buying expensive, really really expensive shoes in New York, and going to trendy broadway shows–she was “on vacation” as was her boss–nevermind that people were being drowned in New Orleans because Bush decided huis vacation was more important. He could always gloss it over, due to the propaganda machuine, and he tried hius best to do so–I mean really, his performance would not have bought his two tickets in a real stage production. Nevertheless., Katrina and New Orleans went into the memory hole. Ho hum–let them drown–they were “underpriveleged anyhow.
I have never in my life seen such disdain toward the human race as in this administration.l I have never seen such disdain as thuis administratio9n shows toward it’s own citizens. Truly evil and I have been around this earth for a long time.
July 16th, 2006 at 5:14 pm“Grotesque’”? No, it’s a tactic.
“The first step is to be the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. A war with Iraq will destabilize the entire Middle East, allowing governments in Syria, Iran, Lebanon, and other countries to be replaced. “
July 16th, 2006 at 5:23 pmhttp://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&geopolitics_and_9/11=centralAsia
The White House has screwed up the world… figure it out!
July 16th, 2006 at 5:44 pmI’d like to see a new reality TV show, perhaps called “Neocon Island.†Here all the neocons are gathered. The toture they employ on others is now employed on them. The object of the game is to see who can hold out the longest. I bet the “bubble-boy†is the first to crack.
Only then would get at the real truth.
July 16th, 2006 at 5:51 pm#196 – Rick S,
July 16th, 2006 at 5:53 pmIt’s the occupants, not the building. Actually, Kathleen Harris is the one to blame for the current state of the world. She is the first bitch since Eve to really screw the human race.
The entire neocon cabal is grotesque. I grow weary hearing from the likes of Bush’s whore …
July 16th, 2006 at 5:58 pm199 – Bottom Line,
July 16th, 2006 at 6:00 pmShe only gives at the office.
200 – the stains on her dress are apparent for everyone to see every time she rises from her knees. One must merely remove one’s rose colored glasses to see.
July 16th, 2006 at 6:03 pmMy conscience forces me to apologize for using such nasty metaphors. I don’t know what came over me. Oh wait, I tuned into Fox news earlier to hear what they had to say. I guess some of the filth spewing forth affected me adversely for a while.
July 16th, 2006 at 6:14 pmIsn’t it amazing that “Doctor Proctor” references 9/11 in regards to the current state of affairs in the Middle East? If I remember correctly, this dumb bitch was largely responsible for the failures on 9/11. I mean, who could have imagined that planes would be flown into buildings? Just the President’s Daily Briefing of August 6, 2001, that’s what. Oh that’s right. It was a historical document. God help us all!
July 16th, 2006 at 6:46 pmDr. (?) Rice. Did this “diplomat” get her PHD at a flea market?
July 16th, 2006 at 6:54 pmIraq and Al Qaeda do not “confront” us so much as we have confronted ourselves with the idealism of “good and evil”. We have to get over this to deal with a real world and ourselves. For to long we have gotten away with the belief that extremism in the defense of an ideal was not wrong. Extremism, idealism, fundamentalism…look at were we’re going! We might as well go back to the middle ages and fight the crusades again. Confronting those who confront us just leads to confrontation, war and death. We must learn to live by the laws of our lands and create laws which give us a chance. We are facing serious problems world wide. A winner take all attitude may save this day; but there are many days yet to come. We need to develop a community to survive. Many of the worlds governments are not up to the task–The Bush leaders are destoryers, not creaters of a future.
July 16th, 2006 at 7:24 pmNot to worry, in 10 years the neocons will be fighting another war against evildoers while today’s evildoers are called allies.
July 16th, 2006 at 7:43 pmThe use of the word “grotesque” is particularly ironic.
The word was coined in reference to the strange decorations found in the buried rooms or ‘grottos’ discovered by Renaissance era Romans. The decorated rooms had been part of Emperor Nero’s Golden House, a lavish palace he build on the ruins of the great fire in central Rome. The fire that Nero himself is now believed to have ordering for the purpose of clearing the space for his house. Nero accused Christians of starting the fire and they were subsequently persecuted and killed in great numbers in retribution.
Yes, Condi, this whole 9/11-Iraq adventure is very grotesque, in the style of Nero.
July 16th, 2006 at 7:44 pmWell said, Matt.
Nero accused Christians of starting the fire and they were subsequently persecuted and killed in great numbers in retribution.
Emperor Nero: Father of the modern false-flag operation.
July 16th, 2006 at 7:59 pmThats Odd ?
Bush administration was claming that its Iraq adventure was directly responsible froe the advancement of democracy in
UKRAIN
LEBANON
PALISTINE
Now that things are destabising and negative. Iraq situation has no conncetion whatsoever.
July 16th, 2006 at 8:05 pmno, actually condi, this is what’s grotesque: “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”.
now, waddya say we go shoe shopping and then take in a little spamalot? i find that during these crises it’s good to just do whatever you can to keep your mind off them.
you know – what babs said about not troubling your ‘beautiful mind’…
July 16th, 2006 at 8:12 pmWow, that link our resident troll shared with us is really quite interesting: Iraq Index. The graphs on the first dozen pages are enlightening.
And horrifying. Like this:
Shows how democratic violent death has become. So everything is going according to plan, right?
Would Israel and Hezbollah be going at it absent the Iraq debacle? Who knows! Bush has, however, made war a viable foreign policy tool when sane people would consider war the failure of foreign policy.
“War, children, it’s just a shot away.”
I’m surprised Las Vegas doesn’t have a line on how bad things are going to get.
July 16th, 2006 at 8:27 pmAmazing! The Bushies always tell us that actions have consequences. Either they think that this simple rule does not apply to them or maybe they think that their actions only have positive actions.
July 16th, 2006 at 9:04 pmoops. That should read positvie consequences.
July 16th, 2006 at 9:05 pmYou know, there is something about this level of delusion that
July 16th, 2006 at 9:38 pmis damn near admirable, this ability to lie with a straight face.
I can’t believe that the other participants at the G-8 summit
aren’t just laughing their asses off at George and his
designer dressed flunkie.
Big Dave from Queen
You are 100% correct.
July 16th, 2006 at 9:53 pmBrian,
1) To treat terrorism as a “law enforcement matter” is exactly the mistake the United State made in the 1990s when responding to Al Qaeda’s attacks on U.S.-related targets. The result of that weak, ineffective response was 9/11, an attack that slaughtered 3,000 innocent people in a single morning (and which MNW apparently considers no big deal)…
2) I am not sure if you are analogizing the British defeat of the IRA to the current Israeli operation against Hamas/Hezbollah or the U.S’s operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I will address the U.S.’s response to 9/11. The differences between the British/IRA battle and the U.S./ Al Qaeda battle are quite stark. The “Troubles” were deadly, but relatively small attacks by an indigenous terrorist group. It was much more analogous to the home-grown terrorist attacks in the U.S. in the 1970s (FALN, Weathermen, SLA), as was the response, which had more of a law-enforcement tenor. One cannot compare the responses to home-grown terrorism and international, state-sponsored terrorism. Unlike the British with the IRA, the U.S. cannot conduct police-raids against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, etc. The cannot have troops patrolling the streets of NYC, Chicago, DC, when the terrorists aret being trained and housed on the other side of the world. To destroy that form of terrorism requires a military response. Training camps must be destroyed. Governments that fund, support, train the terrorists must be toppled or, at least, made to see that their support of terrorism will elicit a price (for example, Reagan’s bombing of Libya in the 1980s).
I would also suggest that the type of response is largely dictated by the terrorist act that initiated it. As violent as the Troubles were, the fact is that they never produced an atrocity the size and violence of 9/11. Over a span of 30 years, approx. 1,900 civilians were killed in The Troubles. On the other hand, Al Qaeda killed approx. 3,000 civilians over a two-hour period in a single morning. The threat from Al Qaeda is far greater than that posed by the IRA. Add the fact that Al Qaeda has stated it intent to acquire weapons of mass destruction to carry out additional, far more deadly 9/11s. (Again, I realize that some people here, like MNW, think 9/11 was no big deal, but those who hold such views are a distinct minority in the U.S. and, hopefully, among those posting on ThinkProgress, as well).
I would also add that although the scope of the British response to the IRA’s terrorist attacks were less intense that the U.S.’s response to Al Qaeda’s far more deadly attack of 9/11, the strategy and goals of both responses were the same — To capture and kill as many of the terrorists as possible in an effort to dismantle the terrorist organizations carrying out the atrocities.
And I disagree with you that the two posts you referenced offered substantive alternatives to the war against Islamic terrorism. Between the two of them all they said was 1) Islamic terrorism is not a problem (I would suggest the MNW talk to the families of those killed on 9/11 about whether or not Islamic terrorism is a threat…Maybe if MNW had been in NYC that day, he would better understand the nature of the threat) and 2) that violence is bad….Well, #2 is all well and good. But neither provides an alternative proposal to what the U.S. and the West should do to deal with the problem of Islamic terrorism. All I read is “”pull out of Iraq, which, of course, suffers from the fatal flaw are being irrelevant since 9/11, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, the African Embassy bombings, and the Khobar Towers bombing all pre-dated the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I still have yet to read anyone offer any alternative policies.
July 16th, 2006 at 9:53 pmWow, I love how Condi immediately invoked Sept. 11 in her answer.
July 16th, 2006 at 10:20 pm[...] UPDATE II: Think Progress displaying even more BDS. Absolutely clueless and yes, Rice is right again, any suggestion that Iraq = the current conflict is “Grotesque”. Remember to the left America sucks, we’re always wrong, Terrorist aren’t thugs, they’re just cuddly teddybears gone astray. [...]
July 16th, 2006 at 10:23 pmComment by Exley — July 16, 2006 @ 9:53 pm
That doesn’t mean they’re not out there, just that Exley refuses to read them (post #125 for example).
July 16th, 2006 at 10:30 pmI still have yet to read anyone offer any alternative policies.
how about finish afghanistan, capture or kill osama and fortify america? that sure sounded like a good idea 5 years ago. throw on top of that ending our addiction to oil and our foreign policy changes instantly. too bad some incompetent fools with no military experience got us started building the oil empire instead.
militant muslims like us “fighting them over there†— it helps them recruit, it weakens our ability to respond to other threats. like now. america getting into iraq was one of the best things that ever happened for al qaeda. the simple fact is that worldwide terrorism has gone UP since we began the “war on terror”.
generally, it’s considered wise to actually solve problems, and not make them worse. if you could actually demonstrate how we’re solving anything with this war policy, instead of demonstrably exacerbating the problem, i’m sure you’d be something more than a cheerleader.
your ridiculous “families of those killed on 9/11″ is just a fear-mongering lie. there are plenty of 9/11 relatives that not only oppose this concept of pre-emptive war, but also suspect that those attacks had nothing to do with al qaeda (and know they had nothing to do with iraq). and i’m sure they wouldn’t want you lumping them in with supporters of the president and his incompetent decisions.
but of course you probably think they’re all traitors and cowards.
July 16th, 2006 at 10:32 pmA victory will not occur until the Iraqi people are governed by a 1. just non-sectarian rule of law and 2. enjoy a reasonable socio-economic climate. Indeed, if just those two factors were granted to people world-wide, terrorists would lose much of their support.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — July 16, 2006 @ 12:16 am
That is what the administration is saying. A democratic, prosperous Iraq is the goal of U.S. policy. The Bush administration has been saying ever since 9/11 that democritization of the Middle East is the best way to defeat Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Sounds likek you and the Bush administration are on the same page. Good to hear.
July 16th, 2006 at 10:45 pmI find Condi Rice, like Kramer on “Seinfeld,” to be both grotesque and compelling. I captured a screen image like the one above and did some measurements.
The distance between the crown and her hairline, her hairline and her brows, her brows and the tip of her nose, and the tip of her nose to her chin are almost exactly equal. Her face length-to-width ratio is 1.6:1. Notice how her collar tips are only as wide as her hair.
I think this gives her face a wide-eyed infantile weirdness that is difficult to drag your eyes from. Also that shiny giblet mouth and not-quite-flowing hair. I think it’s a form of subliminal torture-by-TV.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:14 pmHmmmmm,,,For some reason Progressaurus Rex has provided a link to a fringe conspiracy group whose steering and advisory committees contain no 9/11 family members….
July 16th, 2006 at 11:19 pmIrony, where is thy sting?
You can substitute “extremist forces” for Bush Administration and her statements still hold up.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:48 pm“Rice Calls Idea That Iraq War Contributed To Regional Instability ‘Grotesque’
Yeah…..right, BS, it had nothing to do with it. They started this whole mess. Time to IMPEACH and get rid of all of them.
July 17th, 2006 at 12:18 amComment by Exley — July 16, 2006 @ 10:45 pm
Show me the quotes. In context. Beginning with 9/11/01.
Then cite to any scholarly thesis (one that has been accepted as authoritative by experts in the field) written before 9/11/01 that shows the way to institute democratization in the Middle East is to invade a sovereign country using a war of aggression and impose a democracy on the populace.
Time to put up or shut up, Exley.
July 17th, 2006 at 12:28 amTime to put up or shut up, Exley.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — July 17, 2006 @ 12:28 am
I will help you with two, Exley. Read them well because this is US talking and I dont see any “democratization” in there:
“The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist — McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell-Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.”
– Thomas Friedman, “A Manifesto for the Fast World”, New York Times Magazine, March 28, 1999
“We have 50 percent of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population. . . In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will allow us to maintain this position of disparity. We should cease to talk about the raising of the living standards, human rights, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”
July 17th, 2006 at 12:34 am– George Kennan, Director of Policy Planning of the U.S. Dept. of State, 1948
just to remind everyone of the wingnut debating rules, this is how they go, so elegantly demonstrated by exley here:
1. Never pass up the opportunity to make a purely semantic argument.
2. Ignore, at all costs, the context of any evidence that might support your position. Make sloppy, unsustainable arguments that require your opponents to do your research for you. Then, when they’ve done the research you should have, throw up another unsustainable argument to see if it sticks. Repeat ad nauseum.
3. Any uncertainty, no matter how irrelevant or tangential, always debunks the entire body of evidence no matter how voluminous or rigorously reviewed that evidence is.
July 17th, 2006 at 12:36 amYes, Condoleezza Rice is grotesque in every way, shape and form. A complete and total failure as Secretary of State.
July 17th, 2006 at 12:45 amRex – I bookmarked your link. Thanks.
July 17th, 2006 at 12:57 amCorrection for my posts 141 and 163: David Brock NOT Brook > mispelled his name! He worked for Richard Mellon Scaife to smear President Clinton in the latter 1990s! Eventually he turned on the GOP, and was outed by them as Gay, so he then helped Clinton fight against Ken Starr!
July 17th, 2006 at 1:30 amOne cannot compare the responses to home-grown terrorism and international, state-sponsored terrorism.
Every sensible person must disagree. The US is not existentially threatened in any meaningful sense. Therefore a military response (which to date has killed tens maybe hundreds of thousands) is totally counter productive. It need hardly be pointed out that terrorisim has increased since the invasion, and that attacks in Spain and London where an effect of the Iraq invasion.
Unlike the British with the IRA, the U.S. cannot conduct police-raids against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, etc. The cannot have troops patrolling the streets of NYC, Chicago, DC, when the terrorists aret being trained and housed on the other side of the world. To destroy that form of terrorism requires a military response.
Wrong again. It requires painstakingly negotiated international law. When one kid slaps another, I don’t say ok Johnny you’ve a free pass, you’ve been attacked, kick the shit out of him. Maybe you do?
If someone kills a member of my family, I don’t get a posse together and go and kill a member of their family, or them. Perhaps you do?
If someone from New York kills someone from Washington, this does not unleash an invasion of New York resulting in hundreds of dead.
Why should this principle extend from child rearing and suddenly stop at the abitrary border of an artifical construct like a nation state? That makes no sense. The mistake of you, and those that think like you, as always, is to dehumanise “them”. Thats the root of your incapacity to grasp what I have told you, it’s really very simple. Negotiated, agreed law works, but we need the US onboard not sniping from the sidelines.
July 17th, 2006 at 1:39 amBriseadh na Faire … For starters:
PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. The nation of Iraq, with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people, is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom.
The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life.There are hopeful signs of the desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the freedom gap, so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. From Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward political reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region. It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world, or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim, is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life.
Feb. 26, 2003
July 17th, 2006 at 1:49 amComment by Exley — July 17, 2006 @ 1:49 am
Lovely sentiments, really. Who could disagree? What a pity that the method of choice to deliver all of that good stuff, involves rape, murder and death on an industrial scale.
There is a better way, vast swathes of the world now function within a framework of law. This is what needs to be expanded, not the military.
July 17th, 2006 at 1:53 amBrian, That was an utterly non-responsive response, filled with strained analogies of child-rearingand empty rhetoric, like, “It requires painstakingly negotiated international law.” What exactly does that mean? After 3,000 innocents were slaughtered on 9/11 by Islamic terrorists, the U.S. response should have been to engage in “painstakingly negotiated international law”….with who? To do what? With Al Qaeda to turn themselves in? With the Taliban? Are you actually arguing that Al Qaeda commited the 9/11 atrocity because international law was insufficiently clear that flying hijacked civilian airliners into office buildings to kill thousands of innocents is frowned upon by the most of the civilized world? Should the U.S. response after 9/11 have been to hold some type of international conference where yet another anti-terrorism treaty was signed? Do you really believe that would be any type of deterrent to Al Qaeda?
Moreover, I am not sure what you mean when you write that the U.S. is not “existentially threatened in any meaningful sense.” Are you arguing that a nation never has a right to respond militarily unless its government is about to fall? The slaughter of 3,000 innocents by a foreign terrorist group based in a foreign country is not a sufficient cause to employ the nation’s military? Using your calculus, please provide an example of when military force is justified…
Again, you have provided no concrete alternative proposal as to how you think the U.S. should have responded to the 9/11 atrocity and what the U.S. should do now in its ongoing confrontation with Islamic terrorism.
Moreover, your analogies don’t even work. If a member of your family is killed (God forbid), you don’t go and round up a posse and kill the perpetrator (Although, of course, in some instances, one is entitled to kill an intruder who is threatening your life or that of a family member). You go to the authorities who have the responsibility for hunting, capturing, and punishing criminals. That is exactly what the U.S. did after 9/11…In response to an attack from a foreign entity based in a foreign nation, we employed the authority that is responsible for protecting the nation from foreign threats — the U.S. military. We also had NATO and UNSC resolutions backing up that use of force. So, again, your analogy does not work.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:21 amthanks BnF… unfortunately the person that needs to bookmark it, exley, conveniently dodges arguments where proof is offered.
if you’re losing the argument, obfuscate it.
when you’ve lost the argument, simply ignore it.
this is my favorite example of truth-telling:
bush- “because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder.”
only he forgot to tell us of his immediate plan to destabilize and dominate america. now we’re free to breed the ideologies of murder and war that are so loved and admired by the right-wing, and not be hypocrites.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:24 amMore for Briseadh na Faire:
Will U.S. Democratization Policy Work?
Democracy in the Middle East
Bush ended the debate when he placed democracy and human rights in the context of the war on terror in his January 2002 State of the Union Address. While media attention focused upon his formulation of an “Axis of Evil,” more consequential was his statement of the importance of democratization for the region:
“America will always stand firm for the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the power of the state; respect for women; private property; free speech; equal justice; and religious tolerance. America will take the side of brave men and women who advocate these values around the world, including the Islamic world.[8]”
Such a statement marked the first time a U.S. president talked so prominently about human rights in the Muslim world.
Within the State Department, a group of officials in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor was already working to implement the president’s words more concretely. During 2002, the two bureaus combined resources to spend or commit US$29 million for programs to advance democracy in the Middle East.[9]
The December 2002 creation of the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) furthered the U.S. democratization agenda. In unveiling the program, Powell explained, “Any approach to the Middle East that ignores its political, economic, and educational underdevelopment will be built upon sand.”[11] MEPI sought to effect change by funding pilot projects, such as an election assistance program in Jordan and a program to monitor Yemeni parliamentary elections. The willingness of governments to allow such funding in their countries signaled a tangible willingness to permit the advance of their democracies. This shifted focus from traditional government-to-government aid programs and, instead, emphasized smaller grants to smaller NGOs. Despite claims by some commentators that the U.S. government is obsessed with electoral—as opposed to liberal—democracy, MEPI’s list of grantees reflects an emphasis on civil society, judicial and media reform, and enfranchising women.
Middle East Quarterly, Volume XIII, No. 3
http://www.meforum.org/article/942
July 17th, 2006 at 2:32 amCondoleeza Rice once accidentally called George her husband and then there is a photograph with George kissing her where she appears to be having a full orgasm. This woman knew where she wanted to go and she has her presidential knee pads with her at all times. Tell me, does anyone here ever remember anything she says? It’s all book-speak. Means nothing. George loves it, makes him look intelligent.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:34 amWhat exactly does that mean? After 3,000 innocents were slaughtered on 9/11 by Islamic terrorists, the U.S. response should have been to engage in “painstakingly negotiated international lawâ€â€¦.with who? To do what?
Your response indicates a few things.
1) You are looking for revenge not justice.
2) You have completely failed to grasp how law works. Law does not completey eliminate crime, it simply fosters an environment that discourages it. Totalitarian states have little or no crime, because the state is the primary criminal. You have my sympathy, you are looking for a utopian terrorist free world, which will never happen. It is a neocon fantasy which you appear to have swallowed hook line and sinker.
3) The 3000 deaths on 9/11 does not give the US the right to kill any number of people in pursuit of this utopia. Like all utopian visions (left or right), it requires a vast number of people to be killed before it can be realised. Only as usual we arrive in the promised land only to find it is a stinking swamp, or an arid desert.
Before I begin to explain to you how such a system could work, do you accept in principle that negotiated, agreed, binding international law, binding on the US too, is a desirable goal?
There is little point in my spending hours explaining it, if you beleive (as many rabid US nationalists do) that the US should go it alone regardless of the views of the other 95% of the planet.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:38 amexley’s fantasy world.
“You go to the authorities who have the responsibility for hunting, capturing, and punishing criminals. That is exactly what the U.S. did after 9/11″
osama bin laden. still at large. not captured or punished.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:39 ammy name is exley, i worship failure.
Once again, Brian, you write but say nothing substantive:
“There is a better way, vast swathes of the world now function within a framework of law. This is what needs to be expanded, not the military.”
Yes, indeed vast swathes of the civilized world do now indeed function within a framework of law. Unfortunately (and I hate to break this to you) groups like Al Qaeda and terrorist-sponsors like Saddam Hussein do not function within the framework of the law, international or domestic.
So, AGAIN (for the umpteenth time), I ask what are your concrete, substantive proposals for dealing with the problem of Islamic terrorism.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:42 ambrian,
i can tell you right now there is little point in spending even seconds explaining anything to exley. note how i have rebutted his arguments with proof, and so now he ignores the proof.
exley lives in his own fantasy world. he’s a total ideologue who, frankly, has yet to show an ability to come up with ideas of his own.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:45 amBrian, Your response #240 follows a familiar pattern. You ask a series of questions. I answer them in response and in turn ask you a series of questions….And then you fail to answer any of them and then ask me additional questions. That is not how a traditional give and take exchange of ideas works. So, I will ask again:
After 3,000 innocents were slaughtered on 9/11 by Islamic terrorists, the U.S. response should have been to engage in “painstakingly negotiated international lawâ€â€¦.with who? To do what? With Al Qaeda to turn themselves in? With the Taliban? Are you actually arguing that Al Qaeda commited the 9/11 atrocity because international law was insufficiently clear that flying hijacked civilian airliners into office buildings to kill thousands of innocents is frowned upon by the most of the civilized world? Should the U.S. response after 9/11 have been to hold some type of international conference where yet another anti-terrorism treaty was signed? Do you really believe that would be any type of deterrent to Al Qaeda?
July 17th, 2006 at 2:47 amwhat are your concrete, substantive proposals for dealing with the problem of Islamic terrorism
i propose getting rid of ideologue monkey worshipping war-lusters.
go on, keep ignoring. you lost the debate, so ignore it, exley.
same thing happened last time. you lost, you fled faster than cheney from the vietnam draft.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:49 amProgressRex,….Ummmm, what exact “proof” do you believe you have presented here? Reviewing your posts, I see no facts asserted…No links to news articles…No..well…anything. You have a “unique” definition of “proof.” But I am a sporting man…I will give you a chance to try again. Go ahead.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:51 amSo, AGAIN (for the umpteenth time), I ask what are your concrete, substantive proposals for dealing with the problem of Islamic terrorism.
That has been addressed on the thread at length, and not just by me. Lets not play silly buggers.
I’ll try and keep the questions a minimum, but this is a vital one, and if you want an honest dialouge, it’s important you answer it openly.
Do you accept in principle that negotiated, agreed, binding international law, binding on the US too, is a desirable goal?
July 17th, 2006 at 2:52 amNo, Brian, I am sorry. You have in fact NOT answered here what your response to Islamic terrorism would be…If your answer is, “I don’t know,” that is fine, but you should say so instead of engaging in obfuscation and answering my questions with your own questions…I look forward to your answers to my numerous previous questions which you have heretofore ignored…
But, in order to deprive you of any further cover for your evasions, I will answer your last question (even though you have not extended me the courtesy of answering my questions): First of all, there are various types of international law…Commercial, maritime, trade, etc. There are also different forms of international law. There is “customary international law” and international law by treaty. So, I am not completely certain what you are asking. Yes, I believe that adherence to international law has a place in the conduct of world affairs, including those conducted by the United States. International law provides a certain degree of stability and certainty. International law, of course, also recognizes individual nations’ right to self-defense.
Now, I look forward to your responses to my questions.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:07 amin a prior debate, you asked for a link, a newspaper article or a citation in the congressional record. i provided a link that contained, in fact, all three of these things.
you attacked it, you called it “dishonesty,†you refused to accept it, and then you turned tail. you were wrong, and you couldn’t admit it, even after i gave you exactly what you asked for.
it this thread, i took issue to you commandeering the opinions of “9/11 relatives” for the purpose of your own ideological war-lust and fear-mongering.
your response was to ignore the substance of what i said and attack the link i provided instead, employing a weak rhetorical tactic (see #3 in post 230 above). i then provided six more examples that refuted your ridiculous comment.
your response: nothing. you lose the argument, you ignore it.
what’s the point? if you refuse to admit you’re wrong, even in the face of proof, you are either insane or an unfortunately obstinate idiot.
indeed, i even offered the proposal to your inane “I still have yet to read anyone offer any alternative policies.”:
once again, ignore.
keep defending a failed policy, exley. just to remind you, you are in the overwhelming minority.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:07 amInternational law provides a certain degree of stability and certainty. International law, of course, also recognizes individual nations’ right to self-defense.
OK, so in principle you accept the idea that law equally binding on all parties is desireable.
How to deal with terrorism :
a) Accept that terrorism cannot ever be eradicated. One guy acting independently with a nail clipper is a terrorist. Ergo, like crime it’s going to be with us for a very long time.
b) Stop making laughable pronouncments let “they hate us for our freedoms”. This is nonsense. Find out what the real reasons are.
c) Treat it as a priority police matter.
d) Consider non-americans also humans, worthy of identical respect and value. If you cannot do this, then remove your military, it’s clearly not helping.
As yourself this question honestly. Is the world safer today? It is impossible for an objective, honest, rational person to conclude that the world is safer today than it was a week after 9/11. If you think that it is, then we are doomed to live in alternate realities, and you simply can’t be helped:-(
July 17th, 2006 at 3:27 amAh, yes, ProgressRex, I remember when you first tried to pass off a Newsweek article as a congressional finding. And, as I recall, after I showed that you had misrepresented the Newsweek article, I then dismantled the Newsweek article’s contentions by providing the GWU National Security Archive’s links to official government documents from the 1980s that pretty much put to rest many of the article’s absurd contentions. As for the link you provided earlier regarding 9/11 families, I simpy (and rather effectively) pointed out that you had linked to a conspiracy group which has no 9/11 family members on its boards and committee and therefore pointed out that the link was utterly irrelevant and besides the point.
As for your alternative policies, I am all in favor of killing Osama Bin Laden (I take you are, as well)…Not only am I in favor of it, I wish for it every day. I also favor finishing the job in Afghanistan. However, there is no indication that the Bush administration has given up on Afghanistan. There are still U.S. and NATO troops there. They are still hunting Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists. So, looks like you, me, and the president are on the same page there. As for ending our reliance on foreign oil, I couldn’t agree with you more. We need higher CAFE standards, less “gas guzzlers” and drilling in ANWR. The President has said that America must break its addiction to oil. We are all in agreement there. I hope you write your congressional representatives and urge them to support ANWR exploration and the president’s hydrogen car initiative.
As for your supposed “six more examples that refuted your ridiculous comment”, I have no idea to what you are referring.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:31 amBrian, Let me just ask this outright….Did you support the U.S. and NATO’s invasion of Afghanistan following 9/11?
July 17th, 2006 at 3:33 amhttp://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=825
Skip to the end, shows some fascinating attitudes.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:33 amAnd, Brian, I will re-state what I said much earlier (and to which you did not respond or dispute) … In the 1990s, the U.S. did treat Al Qaeda’s attacks against the U.S. as a law-enforcement matter…The first WTC bombing in 1993, Khobar Towers, the African Embassies, and the U.S.S. Cole were all treated primarily as law-enforcement matters, with indictments being handed down and FBI agents investigating but no military response (except for a few Cruise missiles into Afghanistan that hit nothing)…And the result of these weak responses to the Al Qaeda attacks was an increasingly emboldened Osama Bin Laden who then carried out the worst terrorist attack in world history, killing 3,000 innocent people…And your prescription for dealing with Al Qaeda is to go back to the failed efforts of the 1990s? The definition of insanity, Brian, is to keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. Your proposal to treat terrorist attacks such as 9/11 as a police matter will only lead to more 9/11s. How many people have to die in a single terrorist strike before it becomes more than just a “police matter???”
July 17th, 2006 at 3:45 amyou’re a legend in your own mind.
all you proved is that you can’t read AN ENTIRE LINK to see that it’s not “just” a newsweek article. that’s what first, and your lazy ass couldn’t even skip to the end to see if there was anything else. there is evidence from officials of the dept. of commerce and the cdc, detailing the biological agents sent to saddam.
learn to read. go ahead, i dare you. read that link COMPLETELY and tell me it’s just a newsweek article. don’t exercise the ignorance and incompetence that your neocon heroes are guilty of.
read it, come back here, admit you’re misrepresenting it, otherwise i just don’t have time for you. you lie about me, you misrepresent the facts.
the other thing you linked to actually proved that george schultz contradicted himself on many occasions.
and again, i’ll remind you, newsweek is a reputable source. you just conveniently found it irreputable when it made you look like a fool.
your “effective” pointing out of the 9/11 link was followed by my six further links in post 228. you ignored that. why? because they proved you were wrong yet again.
you’re not even an honest debator. you have lost yet again, you worship failure and you are in the frustrated and whackjob minority.
still.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:56 amsorry i have to do this, others. exley’s dense skull…
THIS IS FROM THE LINK I SENT YOU, EXLEY, YOU MORON:
From U.S. Senate Hearing Report 103-900
u.s. exports of biological materials to iraq
The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs has
July 17th, 2006 at 4:02 amoversight responsibility for the Export Administration Act. Pursuant to
the Act, Committee staff contacted the U.S. Department of Commerce and
requested information on the export of biological materials during the
years prior to the Gulf War. After receiving this information, we
contacted a principal supplier of these materials to determine what, if
any, materials were exported to Iraq which might have contributed to an
offensive or defensive biological warfare program. Records available
from the supplier for the period from 1985 until the present show that
during this time, pathogenic (meaning “disease producing”), toxigenic
(meaning “poisonous”), and other biological research materials were
exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S.
Department of Commerce. Records prior to 1985 were not available,
according to the supplier. These exported biological materials were not
attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction. According to
the Department of Defense’s own Report to Congress on the Conduct of
the Persian Gulf War, released in April 1992:
“By the time of the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq had developed
biological weapons. It’s advanced and aggressive biological warfare
program was the most advanced in the Arab world. The program probably
began late in the 1970’s and concentrated on the development of two
agents, botulinum toxin and anthrax bacteria. . . . Large scale
production of these agents began in 1989 at four facilities near
Baghdad. Delivery means for biological agents ranged from simple aerial
bombs and artillery rockets to surface-to-surface missiles.”
Included in the approved sales are the following biological materials
(which have been considered by various nations for use in war), with
their associated disease symptoms:
Bacillus Anthracis: anthrax is a disease-producing bacteria
identified by the Department of Defense in the The Conduct of the
Persian Gulf War: Final Report to Congress, as being a major component
in the Iraqi biological warfare program.
Anthrax is an often-fatal infectious disease due to ingestion of
spores. It begins abruptly with high fever, difficulty in breathing,
and chest pain. The disease eventually results in septicemia (blood
poisoning), and the mortality is high. Once septicemia is advanced,
antibiotic therapy may prove useless, probably because the exotoxins
remain, despite the death of the bacteria.
Clostridium Botulinum: a baterial source of botulinum toxin, which
causes vomiting, constipation, thirst, general weakness, headache,
fever, dizziness, double vision, dilation of the pupils and paralysis
of the muscles involving swallowing. It is often fatal.
Histoplasma Capsulatum: causes a disease superficially resembling
tuberculosis that may cause pneumonia, enlargement of the liver and
spleen, anemia, an influenza-like illness and an acute inflammatory
skin disease marked by tender red modules, usually on the shins.
Reactivated infection usually involves the lungs, the brain, spinal
membranes, heart, peritoneum, and the adrenals.
Brucella Melitensis: a bacterial which can cause chronic fatigue,
loss of appetite, profuse sweating when at rest, pain in joints and
muscles, insomnia, nausea, and damage to major organs.
Clostridium Perfringens: a highly toxic bacteria which causes gas
gangrene. The bacteria produce toxins that move along muscle bundles in
the body killing cells and producing necrotic tissue that is then
favorable for further growth of the bacteria itself. Eventually, these
toxins and bacteria enter the bloodstream and cause systemic illness.
In addition, several shipments of Escherichia Coli (E.Coli) and
genetic materials, as well as human and bacterial DNA, were shipped
directly to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission.
The following is a detailed listing of biological materials, provided
by the American Type Culture Collection, which were exported to
agencies of the government of Iraq pursuant to the issuance of an
export licensed by the U.S. Commerce Department:
Date: February 8, 1985
Sent to: Iraq Atomic Energy Agency
Materials Shipped: Ustilago nuda (Jensen) Rostrup.
Date: February 22, 1985
Sent to: Ministry of Higher Education
Materials Shipped: Histoplasma capsulanum var. farciminosum (ATCC
32136). Class III pathogen.
Date: July 11, 1985.
Sent to: Middle And Near East Regional A.
Materials Shipped: Histoplasma capsulatum var. farciminosum
(ATCC 32136). Class III pathogen.
Date: May 2, 1986.
Sent to: Ministry of Higher Education.
Materials Shipped: 1. Bacillus Anthracis Cohn (ATCC 10).
Batch #08-20-82 (2 each). Class III pathogen.
2. Bacillus Subtitlis (Ehrenberg) Cohn (ATCC 82). Batch
#06-20-84 (2 each).
3. Clostridium botulinum Type A (ATCC 3502). Batch #07-07-
81 (3 each). Class III Pathogen.
4. Clostridium perfringens (Weillon and Zuber) Hauduroy, et
al (ATCC 3624). Batch #10-85SV (2 each).
5. Bacillus subtilis (ATCC 6051). Batch #12-06-84 (2 each).
6. Francisella tularensis, var. tularensis Olsufiev (ATCC
6223) Batch #05-14-79 (2 each). Avirulent, suitable for
preparations of diagnostic antigens.
7. Clostridium tetani (ATCC 9441). Batch #03-84 (3 each).
Highly toxigenic.
8. Clostridium botulinum Type E (ATCC 9564). Batch #03-02-
79 (2 each). Class III pathogen.
9. Clostridium tetani (ATCC 10779). Batch #04-24-84S (3
each).
10. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 12916). Batch #08-14-80
(2 each). Agglutinating type 2.
11. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 13124). Batch #07-84SV (3
each). Type A, alpha-toxigenic, produces lechitinase C.J.
Appl.
12. Bacillus Anthracis (ATCC 14185). Batch #01-14-80 (3
each). G.G. Wright (Fort Dertick) V770-NP1-R. Bovine anthrax,
Class III pathogen.
13. Bacillus Anthracis (ATCC 14578). Batch #01-06-78 (2
each). Class III pathogen.
14. Bacillus megaterium (ATCC 14581). Batch #04-18-85 (2
each).
15. Bacillus megaterium (ATCC 14945). Batch #06-21-81 (2
each).
16. Clostridium botulinum Type E (ATCC 17855. Batch #06-21-
71. Class III pathogen.
17. Bacillus megaterium (ATCC 19213). Batch #3-84 (2 each).
18. Clostridium botulinum Type A (ATCC 19397). Batch #08-
18-81 (2 each). Class III pathogen.
19. Brucella abortus Biotype 3 (ATCC 23450). Batch #08-02-
84 (3 each). Class III pathogen.
20. Brucella abortus Biotype 9 (ATCC 23455). Batch #02-05-
68 (3 each). Class III pathogen.
21. Brucella melitensis Biotype 1 (ATCC 23456). Batch #03-
08-78 (2 each). Class III pathogen.
22. Brucella melitensis Biotype 3 (ATCC 23458. Batch #01-
29-68 (2 each). Class III pathogen.
23. Clostridium botulinum Type A (ATCC 25763. Batch #8-83
(2 each). Class III pathogen.
24. Clostridium botulinum Type F (ATCC 35415). Batch #02-
02-84 (2 each). Class III pathogen.
Date: August 31, 1987.
Sent to: State Company for Drug Industries.
Materials Shipped:
1. Saccharomyces cerevesia (ATCC 2601). Batch #08-28-08 (1
each).
2. Salmonella choleraesuis subsp. choleraesuis Serotype
typhia (ATCC 6539). Batch #06-86S (1 each).
3. Bacillus subtillus (ATCC 6633). Batch# 10-85 (2 each).
4. Klebsiella pneumoniae subsp. pneumoniae (ATCC 10031).
Batch# 08-13-80 (1 each).
5. Escherichia coli (ATCC 10536). Batch# 04-09-80 (1 each).
6. Bacillus cereus (11778). Batch# 05-85SV (2 each).
7. Staphylococcus epidermidis (ATCC 12228). Batch# 11-86s
(1 each).
8. Bacillus pumilus (ATCC 14884). Batch# 09-08-90 (2 each).
Date: July 11, 1988.
Sent to: Iraq Atomic Energy Commission.
Materials Shipped:
1. Escherichia coli (ATCC 11303). Batch# 04-87S. Phage
host.
2. Cauliflower Mosaic Caulimovirus (ATCC 45031). Batch# 06-
14-85. Plant virus.
3. Plasmid in Agrobacterium Tumefaciens (ATCC 37349). (Ti
plasmid for co-cultivation with plant integration vectors in
E Coli). Batch# 05-28-85.
Date: April 26, 1988.
Sent to: Iraq Atomic Energy Commission.
Materials Shipped:
Hulambda4x-8, clone: human hypoxanthine
phosphoribosyltransferase (HPRT). Chromosome(s): X q26.1
(ATCC 57236) Phage vector; Suggested host: E.coli.
2. Hulambdal 14-8, clone: human hypoxanthine
phosphoribosyltransferase (HPRT). Chromosome(s): X q26.1
(ATCC 57240) Phage vector; Suggest host: E.coli.
3. Hulambda 15, clone: human hypoxanthine
phosphoribosyltransferase (HPRT). Chromosome(s): X q26.1
(ATCC 57242) Phage vector; Suggested host: E.coli.
Date: August 31, 1987.
Sent to: Iraq Atomic Energy Commission.
Materials Shipped:
1. Escherichia coli (ATCC 23846). Batch# 07-29-83 (1 each).
2. Escherichia coli (ATCC 33694). Batch# 05-87 (1 each).
Date: September 29, 1988.
Sent to: Ministry of Trade.
Materials Shipped:
1. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 240). Batch# 05-14-63 (3 each).
Class III pathogen.
2. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 938). Batch# 1963 (3 each).
Class III pathogen.
3. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 3629). Batch# 10-23-85 (3
each).
4. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 8009). Batch# 03-30-84 (3
each).
5. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 8705). Batch# 06-27-62 (3
each). Class III pathogen.
6. Brucella abortus (ATCC 9014). Batch# 05-11-66 (3 each).
Class III pathogen.
7. Clostridium perfringens (ATCC 10388). Batch# 06-01-73 (3
each).
8. Bacillus anthracis (ATCC 11966). Batch# 05-05-70 (3
each). Class III pathogen.
9. Clostridium botulinum Type A. Batch# 07-86 (3 each).
Class III pathogen.
10. Bacillus cereus (ATCC 33018). Batch# 04-83 (3 each).
11. Bacillus ceres (ATCC 33019). Batch# 03-88 (3 each).
Date: January 31, 1989.
Sent to: Iraq Atomic Energy Commission.
Materials Shipped:
1. PHPT31, clone: human hypoxanthine
phosphoribosyltransferase (HPRT). Chromosome(s): X q26.1
(ATCC 57057)
2. plambda500, clone: human hypoxanthine
phosphoribosyltransferase pseudogene (HPRT). Chromosome(s): 5
p14-p13 (ATCC 57212).
Date: January 17, 1989
Sent to: Iraq Atomic Energy Commission.
Materials Shipped:
1. Hulambda4x-8, clone: human hypoxanthine
phosphoribosyltransferase (HPRT). Chromosome(s): X q26.1
(ATCC 57237) Phage vector; Suggested host: E. coli.
2. Hulambda14, clone: human hypoxanthine
phosphoribosyltransferase (HPRT). Chromosome(s): X q26.1
(ATCC 57240) Cloned from human lymphoblast. Phage vector;
Suggested host: E. coli.
3. Hulambda15, clone: human hypoxanthine
phosphoribosyltransferase (HPRT). Chromosome(s): X q26.1
(ATCC 57241) Phage vector; Suggested host: E. coli.
Additionally, the Centers for Disease Control has compiled
a listing of biological materials shipped to Iraq prior to
the Gulf War. The listing covers the period from October 1,
1984 (when the CDC began keeping records) through October 13,
1993. The following materials with biological warfare
significance were shipped to Iraq during this period:
Date: November 28, 1989.
Sent to: University of Basrah, College of Science,
Department of Biology.
Materials Shipped:
1. Enterococcus faecalis.
2. Enterococcus faecium.
3. Enterococcus avium.
4. Enterococcus raffinosus.
5. Enterococcus gallinarium.
6. Enterococcus durans.
7. Enterococcus hirae.
8. Streptococcus bovis (etiologic).
Date: April 21, 1986.
Sent to: Officers City Al-Muthanna, Quartret 710, Street
13, Close 69 House 28/I, Baghdad, Iraq.
Materials Shipped:
1. 1 vial botulinum toxoid (non-infectious).
Date: March 10, 1986.
Sent to: Officers City Al-Muthanna, Quartret 710, Street
13, Close 69 House 28/I, Baghdad, Iraq.
Materials Shipped:
1. 1 vial botulinum toxoid #A2 (non-infectious).
Date: June 25, 1985.
Sent to: University of Baghdad, College of Medicine,
Department of Microbiology.
Materials Shipped:
1. 3 yeast cultures (etiologic) Candida sp.
Date: May 21, 1985.
Sent to: Basrah, Iraq.
Materials Shipped:
1. Lyophilized arbovirus seed (etiologic).
2. West Nile Fever Virus.
Date: April 26, 1985.
Sent to: Minister of Health, Ministry of Health, Baghdad,
Iraq.
Materials Shipped:
1.8 vials antigen and antisera (r. rickettsii and r. typhi)
to diagnose rickettsial infections (non-infectious).
How many people have to die in a single terrorist strike before it becomes more than just a “police matter???â€
The question means nothing. It is the same question everyone who looses a loved one asks, it is an emotional response, not an intellectual one.
Yes 3000 americans were killed, but now almost another 3000 americans are dead, and tens of thousands of Iraqis, with tens being killed horribly every day. How is this remotely better? To save you the hassle of thinking of an answer, it isn’t.
Uniform law, applied fairly is what has given large segments of the world stability, we need the same thing globally. That means the US military does not get to do what it wants, when it wants, or indeed any military.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:09 amhttp://apoeticjustice.blogspot.com/2006/07/o-grotesque-queen-condoleezza.html
…O! GROTESQUE QUEEN CONDOLEEZZA!
July 17th, 2006 at 4:49 amyes, once again, the proof…
…and the exit by exley, a coward who worships failure.
what a surprise. the facts come out and exley turns tail.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:49 am[...] Some people think she would make a good president, VIDEO: Rice Calls Idea That Iraq War Contributed To Regional Instability ‘Grotesque’  Today on ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos pointed out that the Bush administration repeatedly promised that war in Iraq would bring peace and stability to the Middle East. But as the recent violence in the Middle East has shown, the region has actually fallen deeper into instability and unrest since the war began. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Stephanopoulos it was “grotesque†to suggest that the Iraq war contributed to that instability. [...]
July 17th, 2006 at 4:51 amWho you going to believe? Condi or your own eyes?
July 17th, 2006 at 6:30 amAkaDad,
Just to bring the point home, DailyKos is citing the Brookings today. Yeah, definitely a mouthpiece for the right. Mmmmhm.
Exley,
The CDC gave Iraqi universities an assortment of bacteria samples. It’s OK.
Progressaurus,
You will fail to provide evidence of the US selling Iraq WMDs, which is what Spudge tried to claim earlier. And then he ran away knowing that he couldn’t put up.
July 17th, 2006 at 6:37 amBrian, Let me just ask this outright….Did you support the U.S. and NATO’s invasion of Afghanistan following 9/11?
Comment by Exley — July 17, 2006 @ 3:33 am
Afghanistan I was in two minds about, but the Iraq invasion I was totally against. Man, did I call that one right:-(
I have revised my attitudes subsequently, and come to the conclusion that war is simply intolerable, in almost any circumstance. A close scrutiny of the situation in Iraq does that to those who are rational. For much the same reasons, every time we have a global war, international law gets strengthened. My point is simply this, why not skip all the incovenient death and killing, and go straight to the strengthened international law? Thats all.
This is anathema of course, because you, like a large number of Americans are subconsciously proto fascist, the master race in this case being American. A small minority are consciously fascist, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt:-)
Global governance, is the logical path for humans. Since the first tribal spat, we have aggregated into larger and larger groups.
It’s simply a question of working out the details, and keeping the regressives (the US appears to have been disproportionately blessed in this regard) among us from panicking.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:15 amWhat an insane world we live in since the 2000 election. Is there any one in congress that is looking after “we the people?” Tra, la, la, and on and on we go. But to where?
July 17th, 2006 at 8:38 amExley –
No where in post 234 did Bush say that “democratization of the Middle East is the best way to defeat Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.” Nor did he say that in the quote in post 238.
You gave me 2 quotes, one from 2003 and another from 2002. Nothing from 9/11/2001. No scholarly thesis which supported the notion that War was the best way to force a democracy on a sovereign people.
At least you tried to support your statement of fact, which is more than I’ve seen most supporters of this Administration do.
I guess I wish I could get you to understand that the way we’re spreading democracy is not going to increase peace, stability and security. If you feel you owe this Administration your blind allegiance, that is your right to do so. But then you fall into that 29% who would willingly follow an authoritarian figure no matter how insane the path.
July 17th, 2006 at 9:53 amExley is obviously a stubborn hard liner that cannot be reasoned with. Anyone who still believes (in fact, anyone who ever believed) that the war in Iraq was justifiable is as crazy as Exley. What relevance to 9/11 did this have and please will people not say that Afghanistan was considered a serious way to defeat Al Qaeda. The troops went there way too late, in too few numbers and very little has been done 5 years on!
July 17th, 2006 at 9:59 amCould anyone … ANYONE … please tell me what ProgressRex is talking about when he writes:
‘your “effective†pointing out of the 9/11 link was followed by my six further links in post 228′
Ummm, post 228 is neither from ProgressRex nor does it contain six links (or any links for that matter).
It appears PR’s inability to grasp reality extends not only to international affairs but readings posts, as well.
Try again, Progress Rex…
July 17th, 2006 at 10:36 amComment by Frankly — July 17, 2006 @ 9:59 am
On the contrary, a lot has been done. Thousands of Iraqis lay dead. over 2,500 American soldiers, men and women, are dead. Certain companies have profited immensely from no-bid contracts with little or no fiscal oversight, contracts to rebuild the infrastructure we blew up. America has lost much of its standing in the World’s eyes (but we can still nuke the rest of the world into submission, so they have to make nice with us). I could go on….
July 17th, 2006 at 10:43 am#267 – Exley,
July 17th, 2006 at 10:45 amTry post #132.
So, Brian, your position is pacifist in nature. You believe that military force is never justified. It was not justified in response to 9/11. It was not justified in response to Pearl Harbor. It was not justified to defeat Nazism. Military force was not justified to stop the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo.
As a pacifist, you are certainly entitled to hold that opinion. You are not opposed to the Iraq war or the Bush foreign policy…You are opposed to war, period. So, this is not a disagreement about policy. It is a philosophical difference. Hence, there is no resolution. I will conclude our discussion, therefore, simply by saying that I do not agree with your position, for there are times evil must be confronted and destroyed, whether it be in the form of Hitler, Milosevoic, or Bin Laden. The alternative is to allow evil to prevail. I cannot accept that the better moral choice in the 1930s and 40s was to allow Hiter to overrun Europe and continue the Holocaust rather than oppoing him militarily. Similarly, I cannot accept that allowing Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to remain unmolested in Afghanistan, free to plan additional attacks against innocent civilians, would have been the correct moral response to the 9/11 atrocity.
July 17th, 2006 at 10:56 amWalttheMan, Thank you, but those links at post #132 were not provided by ProgressRex, nor were they posted in response to anything I had written. That was a separate discussion by other individuals. No, I am still trying to fathom what ProgressRex is talking about when he talks about “six links” he provided in post 228 — a posting again that was not written by ProgressRex and contains no links….
Still waiting for PR to try and explain himself.
July 17th, 2006 at 11:02 amYou fail to understand that there are millions of people in this world today who would claim that the above sentence is correct. I doubt you have the capacity to begin to understand why millions of impoverished and enslaved people around the world might hold Bin Laden to be a hero and Bush to be evil. And I doubt you have the capacity to understand why they are justified in thinking that way.
You have proven yourself to be one of the 29% who will follow even an insane dictator. I gave you the opportunity to put up or shut up. You failed.
July 17th, 2006 at 11:17 am#271 — Exley,
July 17th, 2006 at 11:21 amPR actually referenced post 230 in his post 249, not 228 as you say. Everyone should be allowed one mistake when crossreferencing to other posts. In this instance, you each made at least one apiece.
Briseadh na Faire.
Actually, I quite successfully proved that the Bush administration has been saying for years that democratization of the Arab/Islamic world is the best, long-term strategy to destroy Islamic fundamentalist terrorism (I would suggest you read the ME Quarterly piece, which you clearly have not). You are apparently too embarassed to face the fact that I proved you wrong…again. And, yes, I am sure there are many people who see Bin Laden as a hero (although if you kept up with international news you would know that his popularity has plummeted in Islamic nations over the past few years). There were also many people who saw Adolf Hitler as a hero. That did not make him (or them) right. Your logic again proves faulty and easily dismissable.
July 17th, 2006 at 11:27 amI cannot accept that the better moral choice in the 1930s and 40s was to allow Hiter to overrun Europe and continue the Holocaust rather than oppoing him militarily
By golly, if I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard this same tired cliche rolled out …
To use your monolithic and simplistic American terminology. The “right” needs to get out of the time warp that has them stranded in the 1930’s.
To pro-Bush war supporters, the world is forever stuck in the 1930s. Every leader they don’t like is Adolf Hitler, a crazed and irrational lunatic who wants to dominate the world. Every country opposed to your interests is Nazi Germany.
From this it follows that every warmonger is the glorious reincarnation of the brave and resolute Winston Churchill. And one who opposes or even questions any proposed war becomes the lowly and cowardly appeaser, Neville Chamberlain. For any and every conflict that arises, the U.S. is in the identical position of France and England in 1937 – faced with an aggressive and militaristic Nazi Germany, will we shrink from our grand fighting duties in appeasement and fear, or will we stand tall and strong and wage glorious war?
It’s simply nonsense. We do not live in the 1930’s, we live in a networked interdependent world where communication is instant and culture in constant flux.
That is why we need binding laws that target individuals, not nation states. We know who they are, and we know their movements. At the very least with such a system, we could make ruling for those we consider in breach of agreed laws practically impossible, and in a few celebrated cases we have.
Similarly, I cannot accept that allowing Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to remain unmolested in Afghanistan, free to plan additional attacks against innocent civilians
So its a moral position is it? I have no idea how that squares with any moral code I’ve ever seen. Killing thousands of actual civilians to prevent potential attacks? Clearly you value foreigners so little that hundreds of actual deaths are a price you are willing to pay for a smidgen more ephemeral security.
What if an earthquake strikes, or a tsunami, or a meteor, or the sun goes supernova, or a black hole passes through the solar system and sterilises the Earth?
Good grief try and get past the terror, it’s a wonder you can dress yourself.
Islamic terrorists are scary, but they do not represent either an existential threat to the US, the EU or the planet. A general world war, brought on by a conflagration in the middle east absolutely does.
For the record, I am not a pacifist. In the context of a democratized UN, I’d sanction assassination, international swat teams and in some limited cases actual war as solutions. I just don’t see how a tiny minority of global society has the right to take extreme action and endanger everyone without an agreed process.
If you can’t “get” how a world bound by laws curcumscribing war would be beneficial, there is very little more I can say on the subject.
Rational people know they must be subject to law, because it protects as well as restricts them. Laws are required at all tiers of society from your local town to the entire planet.
Parking meters and zoning are administered locally. Wars that could result in thousands of deaths, continent spanning pollution or in the worst case scenario, complete planetary destruction, strike me as requiring regulation at the global level. I’m not the crazy one in this discussion bud, you are:-(
July 17th, 2006 at 11:28 amWalttheMan, This is admittedly getting confusing, but in posting 255 PR wrote: “your “effective†pointing out of the 9/11 link was followed by my six further links in post 228.”
I don’t see anywhere where he provided six links in post 228 or anywhere else. I agree with you that PR must ne confused (Actually one need only read his writings on foreign policy to see that)…Let’s wait for PR to try and explain himself.
July 17th, 2006 at 11:34 amThere were also many people who saw Adolf Hitler as a hero. That did not make him (or them) right. Your logic again proves faulty and easily dismissable.
Only in your head …. I don’t beleive the point was that because people think something is true, that it is. People elected GWB last time round, and look how badly that worked out.
If you have nothing to loose, if a military hyperpower is crushing the life out of you, blowing yourself up for 72 virgins begins to look good. You are an idiot of course, but roughly 30% of the human race are. Ask any overweight trailer trash redneck if he would die for his “country” or “freedom” (without a definition) and you’d have to go a long way to get a no.
You though Exley, should know better, you are no dumb ass. Yet you cheerlead and faciliate industrialised slaughter of stangers half a world away. That makes you a proto fascist in my book.
July 17th, 2006 at 11:41 am#276 – Exley,
July 17th, 2006 at 11:42 amI did not get to post 255, sorrry, but I found the post that PR was back referencing by searching for the pattern “http” and looking for a stack of six. I learned to employ such techniques as TP occassionally removes inane posts, like many of yours, and the numbering sequence does not always stay valid.
Actually, Brian, it is you and others on the left who seem stuck in the 1930s and 40s. You seem to believe that evil was defeated in its entirety with the Allied victory in 1945 and that evil would never arise again in the world. To you FDR and Churchill were right to confront the evil of Nazism but today the U.S. is wrong to confront the evil of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.
Moreover, in your fantasy world you seem to believe that international law banning war will prevent war. Do you know what the Kellogg-Briand Pact was? It was a treaty signed in 1928 that banned war. We all saw how well that worked out. You seem incapable of understanding that there are people, organizations, and governments in the world that are not the rational, law-abiders, who will comply with international law and take their grievances to The Hague. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are not about to file a petition with the UN. They slaughter innocents in an effort to obtain power and control events. Yet, remarkably, you seem to believe that they would accept and comply with international norms of civilized behavior.
You are a very naive man, Brian, and sadly deluded.
July 17th, 2006 at 11:45 amBrian, Namaste.
There are those of us who see multiple facets to a stituation, and others who only see what they are told to see. Exley follows authoritarianism. Anything outside of that paradigm is beyond his comprehension. He will always feel he is absolutely right no matter overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
What part of the globe do you hail from?
July 17th, 2006 at 11:52 am“no matter overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”
Actually, Briseadh na Faire, if you ever chose to present ANY evidence whatsoever, I would love to see it. As it is, you provide no evidence, facts, quotes, articles, etc. to back up anything you ever say. In fact, you never make factual arguments at all. You merely issue holier-than-thou exhortations, while providing no substantive ideas. If you would like to try and do better in explaining and defending your somewhat ambiguous positions from now on, I think we would all appreciate it.
Out of curiousity, I would ask you the same questions you posed in # 280: What part of the globe do you hail from?
July 17th, 2006 at 12:07 pmYou seem incapable of understanding that there are people, organizations, and governments in the world that are not the rational, law-abiders, who will comply with international law and take their grievances to The Hague.
Shock horror!!! You don’t say?
As always you poor fellas can’t grasp that having laws does not eliminate crime, or initially at any rate, wars. It just makes them much harder to have. If all humans had your attitude we’d still be caves, picking lice off our hides.
The very fact that the US, the EU, India and China function internally with common biinding law is evidence that it works. Some functioning states have more people in them now, than were in the entire world in 1900. However, it takes political will and hard work, something which of course your idiot president is averse to.
In a world chock full of WMD, terrorists and obvious injustice, not to agree fair and binding law is the ultimate form of slow motion suicide. A realist recognises the writing on the wall, a US hegemony based on violence will be resisted violently. Haves versus the have nots, it’s all happened before, but this is the first time it’s been played out on a truly global scale.
We (haves) can
a) Kill in vast numbers those that resist, a Nazi solution, prone to instability.
b) Loose the battle and be killed in large numbers, a French solution. Unlikely though.
c) Reform the system and defuse the frustration, a British solution. My preferred option.
To think that we can simply plow on as we are now, is truly deluded. Rest assured if we have a slaughter and millions are killed, we’ll be getting tighter global governance one way or the other, and it is unlikely to be on US terms. In fact the global economy will be in such disarray, the US such a pariah that the rest of the world will insist that the facilitators of the conflict be brought to justice.
July 17th, 2006 at 12:12 pmWhat part of the globe do you hail from?
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — July 17, 2006 @ 11:52 am
Ireland, but I currently live in Sweden. Vive la EU!!!
July 17th, 2006 at 12:14 pmThe sad things is that Rice is the one actually smart enough to know she’s lying.
July 17th, 2006 at 12:17 pmYet, remarkably, you seem to believe that they would accept and comply with international norms of civilized behavior.
C’mon you are not this dumb. This is what law enforcement is.
What I am about is, giving the UN the legitimacy to issue warrants of arrest, subpoenas and the judicial infrastructure to try and convict or acquit the accused.
Now. It is true that there is a fundamental problem if an entire nation state harbours a particular person, or group of individuals. Then the option of sanctioned assassination drifts onto the table, up to and including war.
At the moment we have sanctions, and the war option, but few other genuine instruments. In addition the Security Council has a mere 15 members, 5 of who are not elected and all of who can derail any process with a single veto. These 5 members account for less than 30% of the global population, and 2 major landmasses are completely unrepresented.
At a minimum, a larger security council, where no vetoes exist, and a sliding scale of majority votes sliding up the scale depending on the gravity of the action brought to bear on the issues, would go a long way to solving the log jam.
July 17th, 2006 at 12:18 pmRice looks more and more like a gargoyle every day, and now she’s calling the truth grotesque. Wow.
July 17th, 2006 at 12:19 pmErin Go Bragh!
That explains why you recognized the Celtic in Briseadh na Faire. I have a Celtic ancestry as well – Scotland. I’ll be visiting Dubland the first part of August, right after I take the Bar.
What sites would you recommend to one who has never been to Ireland before?
July 17th, 2006 at 12:32 pmHm. She calls it “grotesque”, but not “inaccurate”.
July 17th, 2006 at 12:38 pmI’ll be visiting Dubland
It is in fact Dublin. Just for the record:-)
What sites would you recommend to one who has never been to Ireland before?
Hmmmm … Dublin is a bust. Too expensive and commercial, Donegal, Galway, Belfast thats in the North so not the republic, but the border hardly exists these days, does it Exley? Courtesy of the Brits not overreacting, we had no idea how lucky we were. Jesus, imagine the IRA were bombing America??:-)
Cork is nice, and Wicklow has great scenery.
You should get out to the Aran Islands, they are amazing. Other than that …. depends how long you have.
July 17th, 2006 at 12:51 pmWhy are so many obsessing about Iraq when it’s just business as usual?
July 17th, 2006 at 1:46 pmWhen do we realize that for five hundred years it’s been the same except g>that now, instead of 17% of war casualties being civilians in WW1, there were 65% civilian casualties in WW11, the “Good War.†And in all wars since civilian casualties are now 90%? When do we realize that the recent belief that Bush is the only horror is just today’s news obsession? Bill Clinton and the Iraq sanctions deprived a decimated nation of food, clean water, cheap medicine, and even syringes, sanctions which killed 1,500,000 civilians, 500,000 of them children who died from typhus, hunger, dehydration and the lack of access to even chlorine to clean the diseased filled water. Five hundred thousand children under five died because chemicals like chlorine were on the list of sanctioned chemicals. Some of them were born grotesque creatures, born from the depleted uranium effected wombs of their nuclearised mothers. And of course his warrior wife is perhaps our next savior. And when do we telling the complete truth. This war has gone on since 1990. We just gave them three names. Gulf War, Sanctions, and Gulf War 2. These are not movie sequels. Total civillians from 16 yeaR – 2,000,000 out of 25 million.
Why are so many obsessing about Iraq when it’s just business as usual?
July 17th, 2006 at 1:46 pmWhen do we realize that for five hundred years it’s been the same except g>that now, instead of 17% of war casualties being civilians in WW1, there were 65% civilian casualties in WW11, the “Good War.†And in all wars since civilian casualties are now 90%? When do we realize that the recent belief that Bush is the only horror is just today’s news obsession? Bill Clinton and the Iraq sanctions deprived a decimated nation of food, clean water, cheap medicine, and even syringes, sanctions which killed 1,500,000 civilians, 500,000 of them children who died from typhus, hunger, dehydration and the lack of access to even chlorine to clean the diseased filled water. Five hundred thousand children under five died because chemicals like chlorine were on the list of sanctioned chemicals. Some of them were born grotesque creatures, born from the depleted uranium effected wombs of their nuclearised mothers. And of course his warrior wife is perhaps our next savior. And when do we telling the complete truth. This war has gone on since 1990. We just gave them three names. Gulf War, Sanctions, and Gulf War 2. These are not movie sequels. Total civillians from 16 yeaR – 2,000,000 out of 25 million.
It is in fact Dublin. Just for the record:-)
Sorry about the typo! That’s what I get for clicking “Post” without proof-reading!
Thanks for the suggestions. I’ll only have a couple of days to get around, so I want to make the most of it.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:02 pmBrian, you seem to have difficulty grasping the difference between enacting laws and ENFORCING laws…You repeat ad nauseum that international law should dictate how nation-states and other international actors should conduct themselves. Fine..That’s all well and good and I don’t think that anyone here would disagree with that…But you do NOT discuss or even contemplate what needs to be done when an terrorist organization like Al Qaeda violates international law. Your prescription is that the world do nothing and let Al Qaeda and other bad actors perpetrate the crimes with impunity. Moreover, you ignore the fact that in the wake of 9/11, the UN Security Council enacted Resolutions 1368 and 1373. That is international due process, which is what you seem to be calling for. So, you cannot claim that the U.S. and NATO’s response to 9/11 was violative of international law, as you seem to be incorrectly suggesting.
In sum, Brian, international law is all well and good, but without the means to enforce it, it is not worth the paper it is printed on.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:07 pm“Now. It is true that there is a fundamental problem if an entire nation state harbours a particular person, or group of individuals. Then the option of sanctioned assassination drifts onto the table, up to and including war.”
BINGO! FINALLY he gets it! Yes, Brain, the scales have fallen from your eyes! You now understand the differences between fighting domestic terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism where the terrorists are funded, housed, and protected by a country…Having subpoena and arrest power is good as far as it goes (Such power does exist under international law)…But FBI agents can’t just walk into Afghanistan and arrest Osama Bin Laden or serve him subpoena. The U.S. needed to fight its way into Afghanistan, where the Taliban was sheltering Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Thus, as you now concede, military force was necessary in Afghanistan….
Whew! That took some doing, but I am glad Brian finally gets it. Well done, Brian.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:13 pm“When the going gets grotesque, the grotesque go shoe-shopping!”
RICE-A-PHONY!
July 17th, 2006 at 2:17 pmIn sum, Brian, international law is all well and good, but without the means to enforce it, it is not worth the paper it is printed on.
Indeed, so we must collectivley supply the means and enforce them, but not on your terms. I repeat, I am not a pacifist. I have no issue with violence directed at those who deserve it and who flout democratically agreed global laws.
However, without the laws or the democratic structures to provide them ….. we have anarchy and chaos, in effect the global feudal system your nation sits precariously atop.
This is a bad thing, and it will be remedied. Ideally before a global conflagration, but certainly after.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:25 pmBlood begets blood, death begets death. It’s this endless cycle that breeds desperation, and fuels the hatred inherent in religion based military conflict.
July 17th, 2006 at 2:46 pmTo suggest that via war any of these extremist groups will forget past transgressions and give up on the idea of revenge is ridiculous and ignorant. War has been the only constant in that region for countless years and it has solved nothing beyond breeding contempt, and continuing to empower the military industrial complex.
Sure, oil is the main goal of overthrowing Iraq, but you cannot forget the enormous profits being funneled through our military industry.
President Eisenhower foresaw the possibility of this kind of unchecked power (military industrial complex) in the years following WWII, and mentioned it in a speech.
He also foresaw the possible rise of neo-cons in a letter to his brother.
“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,
you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There
is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do
these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an
occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is
negligible and they are stupid.”
—President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in a letter to his brother
Edgar on November 8, 1954
Seixon and Exley:
As you claim everything is so hunky-dory since the US invaded Iraq, infrastructure is better, Saddam is out of office, why don’t you both report to us from the streets of Baghdad on this blog? I’m sure we’d like to hear your live, for a time at least, reports. Please don’t give us excuses, just go there and experience it first hand. Then, if you return, we will gladly listen.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:25 pmI think Condi looks like ‘Napoleon Dynamite’ in this photo.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:18 pmFrom The New York Times:
Sunni Arab leaders in the strife-ridden neighborhood of Dawra recently secured an explicit agreement with Shiite-led commandos based there that says the Iraqi forces will not raid a Sunni mosque or private home without being accompanied by American forces. A new brigade of Iraqi forces has just moved in, and the Sunnis are likely to try to reach the same agreement with them.
A similar but more informal agreement exists in Adhamiya. Leaders of the Sunni Endowment, an Iraqi organization that helps administer Sunni mosques, say they have asked the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to extend the Dawra agreement to all of Baghdad.
“If the Iraqi forces come without American soldiers, people will shoot at them, because we’ll know they’re militias,†said Sheik Akrim al-Dulaimi, the head imam of the Holy Mecca Mosque in Dawra. “Civilians don’t trust the government.â€
The Sunni fear of militias and government forces — and a growing affinity for American soldiers — extends to other mixed areas of Iraq.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:51 pmWell, Brian, I don’t disagree with this at all:
“I have no issue with violence directed at those who deserve it and who flout democratically agreed global laws. However, without the laws or the democratic structures to provide them ….. we have anarchy and chaos…”
That is why it was/is necessary to pursue and destroy Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with a global reach and capability.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:55 pmThat is why it was/is necessary to pursue and destroy Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with a global reach and capability.
By all means, but not by killing hundreds, or thousands, or tens of thousands of civilians. If you are the great humanitarian you claim to be, you’ll have no problem putting american soldiers lives at risk to protect innocents in Iraq.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:16 pmBrian, American soldiers are putting their lives at risk every single day to protect that lives of innocent Iraqis from the terrorists and “insurgents.” If the U.S. didn’t care about the lives of innocent Iraqis, it would have defeated Saddam, toppled the Baathist regime, and then left the Iraqis to fend for themselves in April or May of 2003 and many hundreds of American solidiers’ lives would have been saved,, but at a terrible cost to the Iraqis. The vast number of U.S. casualties have come after the defeat of Saddam; casulaties inflicted while U.S. soldiers patrol the streets of Baghdad, etc. to help maintain order and help the Iraqis rebuild their country destroyed by 30 years of Saddam’s fanatical, genocial reign.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:35 pmAnd don’t get me started about how bad democracy can be. It is just that, as Churchill said, it is unfortunately the best form of government. That is why we are installing them. Even if some arabs vote in terrorist governments…when those get defeated, the people will have some “ownership” in their defeats and vote more wisely next time. Democracy is a learning process.
Americans are learning and still can’t get their democracy straight:
The American democracy voted for the IMBRA law that Bush signed. It is under restraining order by one federal judge but another (Republican) judge has said “The Supreme Court has never recognized a fundamental liberty interest in Americans meeting foreigners for relationships.”
Apparently the American people voted to have their right to association limited to domestic “associates” only.
Be sure not to vote Republican in November for THAT reason. But there is no reason to rationalize that killing terrorists and their younger brothers will magically create a non-existant additional 3 brothers appear and become terrorists.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:38 pmLA kid,
As you claim everything is so hunky-dory since the US invaded Iraq, infrastructure is better, Saddam is out of office, why don’t you both report to us from the streets of Baghdad on this blog? I’m sure we’d like to hear your live, for a time at least, reports. Please don’t give us excuses, just go there and experience it first hand. Then, if you return, we will gladly listen.
No where did I say everything is “hunky-dory”, exaggerated strawmen are a poor debater’s trick.
As for your suggestion that we go to Iraq and report, why don’t you? You apparently disagree with the facts I presented, so why don’t you go to Iraq yourself and report on how horrible everything is?
See how lame that debate tactic is now?
July 17th, 2006 at 8:46 pmExley,
July 17th, 2006 at 10:20 pmGo breed with a flat worm you heirs will have double your inherited brain cell count. Perhaps you and Seixon can form a pair. The Japanese can even make a movie – Godzilla and Mothra are about played out.
Americans deserve Condi!!! We reselected King George and all of his cronies, including Cute Condi. If she is stating what we pay her thousands of dollars every month to tell us, why all the bru ha ha about her response to Stephanopoulos? We are getting what we all deserve. So please hold your fire. She did nothing wrong!!!
July 17th, 2006 at 11:59 pmHere is an interesting object lesson:
In 1850BC the Egyptian Early Kingdom had been the world’s superpower for hundreds of years. They certainly occupied Palestine, the crossroads of the world at the time. But around then came a liberal government…a Pharoah McGovern as it were.
He decided that it was not nice (and too costly) to occupy Palestine and he pulled back all the troops. Twenty years later, his crack troops were in their 40s and retiring, replaced by untrained troops in a degraded army.
Meanwhile, in the mountains of Turkey, a new civilization had invented weapons of mass destruction: these were called chariots.
But the Egyptian CIA had also been downgraded and/or they felt it was immoral to read other people’s papyruses (or is it papuri). So nobody knew about chariots.
In the middle of one night…the unknown enemy that had silently crossed the unguarded Palestine…entered Egypt and captured the entire country with the terrifying new chariots.
Many say that it was under the administration of this non-Egyptian force that Joseph was able to become a high official…while his descendants were made into slaves when the Egyptians recaptured their own country generations later. This memory caused the Egyptian Middle and Late Kingdoms to be a lot stronger.
Main lesson: one cannot cede at least indirect control (or alliance with) the people who control important resources and key crossroads in this world. Before this war ends, Iranian oil revenue must not be flowing into the hands of terrorists.
July 18th, 2006 at 3:35 amIntelligent comment, WaltTheMan. Well-reasoned and researched. And so eloquently phrased. Seriously…You should be very proud. No, no…I mean it. You are a very clever individual. Did you come up with that posting on your own or did you get some help? What a clever chap you are! “The Japanese can even make a movie – Godzilla and Mothra are about played out.” Haha! Oh, my! That is SO witty! You are a veritable Oscar Wilde! You, sir, have a rapier-like wit! Heh! A ‘flat-worm!” Oh, that is priceless! Bravo, sir! Bravo…God what a clever, smart gent you must be, to come up with a joke like that all by yourself! You are VERY funny! Yous should do stand-up! Has anyone ever told you that before? Because it’s true! It’s true!! God, you are SO funny!!
Hat tip: Seth McFarlane
July 18th, 2006 at 5:37 am[...] I’m also reminded that the president has a very simple world view, and this is not a simple world. I’m reminded of all of the idealism that led the war planners (Cheney said in 2002 that the overthrow of Saddam would lend a great deal of stability to the region. That’s worked out really well.). I’m thinking that we need strong leadership and skilled crisis intervention. We need a diplomatic mission that forces the big boys to the table, that hammers out agreements between people who can’t agree. [...]
July 18th, 2006 at 10:30 amAbove and beyond Secretary Rice’s impressive education sits her blind faith in anything that favors Big Oil. See her support of Equatorial Guinea, which tortures its starving citizens but keeps the oil flowing. See also the Unocal oil tanker bearing her name. She aint the Bush/Cheney diplomatic choice for any other reason. A disgusting human being.
July 18th, 2006 at 8:37 pmAny Americans who, despite their beliefs on the necessity of the Iraq invasion, are not hoping and praying for a U.S victory there, should be ashamed of themselves. Any serious student of history knows that if it were not for the USA, no one on this earth would now be living in freedom. We have only two choices in dealing with born murderers who are able to exploit the weak of mind as suicidal killers of the innocent. We can either fight them or do whatever they want us to do. Ignoring them is not an option. More on this later.
July 19th, 2006 at 3:23 pmAll-knowing Steve
Has Bush and Rice been on holiday for the past four years? The way both are running around on the war path one can only assume that they learned nothing from 9/11.
I wonder if they would be so gung ho if another country was capable of dropping missiles on Washington. One can always talk tough when the enemies of the state are thousands of miles away.
July 19th, 2006 at 3:42 pmlphdb trlkvqu jfka ypfqhrw jacugvh ydvhkfq aerxzluft
September 7th, 2006 at 5:36 pmWashington dosen’t care about the troops in Iraq, the only reason the casuality rate is lower than Vietnam is new medicine which sends damaged soldiers back to the US to fend for themselves.
This “new” troop increase will increase the casuality rate but why would
someone who hasn’t seen combat care. As for the military disagree with Bush and forget any promotion and retire.
God help the troops who are in more danger now than they were previously. Until Bush is gone Iraq=Vietnam with the same eventual result, the military & the administration are making up new Iraq solutions on the fly over dead soliders, just as they have been since the invasion.
January 21st, 2007 at 1:31 amEric
Hello, I have a few websites of my own and I must say that your site is really top notch. Keep up the great work on a really high class resource.
March 14th, 2008 at 12:32 pmAss Round Ass Tight Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 10:21 amBody Cleansing Yeast Infections
Found your blog on yahoo – thanks for the article but i still don’t get it.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:17 amGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 12:19 pmGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:53 pmPaul
what about think with a different angle.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:15 am