Bush Asked Whether He’s ‘Still In Denial,’ Responds ‘It’s Bad In Iraq. That Help?’
Bush Asked Whether He’s ‘Still In Denial,’ Responds ‘It’s Bad In Iraq. That Help?’
At a press conference this morning with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a reporter asked President Bush whether his use of the word “unsettling” to describe the violence in Iraq would “convince many people that you’re still in denial about how bad things are in Iraq.”
Bush responded curtly, “It’s bad in Iraq. That help?” and then chuckled. Watch it:
Bush later said, “You know, in all due respect, I’ve been saying it a lot. I understand how tough it is, and I’ve been telling the American people how tough it is.”
On 10/25, Bush said the U.S. was “absolutely” winning the Iraq war. On 10/17, Vice President Cheney claimed the “general overall situation” in Iraq was going “remarkably well.”
Full transcript:
QUESTION: Mr. President, the Iraq Study Group described the situation in Iraq as “grave and deteriorating.” You said that the increase in attacks is “unsettling.” That will convince many people that you’re still in denial about how bad things are in Iraq and question your sincerity about changing course.
BUSH: It’s bad in Iraq. That help? (Laughter)
QUESTION: Why did it take others to say it before you’ve been willing to acknowledge it to the world?
BUSH: You know, in all due respect, I’ve been saying it a lot. I understand how tough it is, and I’ve been telling the American people how tough it is. And they know how tough it is.
And the fundamental question is: Do we have a plan to achieve our objective? Are we willing to change as the enemy has changed?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Once again, it’s the British reporters who ask the tough questions and press these goons for follow-ups, while the American “reporters” just sit there timidly laughing at Bush’s bullying attempts at humor.
December 7th, 2006 at 12:47 pmit’s tough being the Decider
December 7th, 2006 at 12:52 pmSnotty reporter, sarcastic “question.” Dubya put him in his place. Good for Dubya!
December 7th, 2006 at 12:52 pmBush responded curtly, “It’s bad in Iraq. That help?†and then chuckled.
Bush just laughed and made light of all the commas in Iraq. Commander in Chief my butt.
And in answer to his question….no it doesn’t help.
December 7th, 2006 at 12:52 pmTo Bush, what he says is always more important than what ‘reality’ might be. So if he says he’s been frank and honest, he has been. If you don’t believe him, just ask him.
December 7th, 2006 at 12:53 pmThere’s that nervous chuckle again.
“Leader of the free world,” accountable to We, The People, and to his God for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and brave soldiers, CHUCKLES as he says, “it’s bad.” .
And the snide sarcastic “that help?” remark…
My God, I’m just dumbfounded. Truly, the worst president ever, and arguably the worst world leader ever…
Jim
December 7th, 2006 at 12:53 pm“The Enemy has changed”. But the real question is whio is the real enemy : the architects of 9/11 that changed everything — and created this phony baloney war on terrorism or 19 Muslims with boxcutters that brought down the Trade Towers? I ask you.
December 7th, 2006 at 12:55 pmAh yes, our old friend… “in all due respect”… Better described as “I apologize, but I’m about to tell a little white lie”.
By the way, awesome question.. challenging Dubya’s sincerity. That really touched a nerve.
December 7th, 2006 at 12:57 pmStupid blogger, dumb posting. Somebody needs to put him in his place. Good for whoever does it.
December 7th, 2006 at 12:58 pmOh Exley, you dumb cun*. Bush’s role is putting people in their place isn’t it? And for an increasing number of good men, that place is six feet under.
You look like a fool to support this idiot. What is it that draws you morons to Bush?
Honestly, why does anyone support that POS?
December 7th, 2006 at 1:00 pmI think he’s sociopathic! He can’t contain the disdain when someone challenges one of his many failures, so he can only manage sarcasm. God, what an ugly, dangerous person he is, and how lame are we?
December 7th, 2006 at 1:01 pmThis stay-the-course strategy of his is so frustrating. According to the Borgen Project, if just $40-60 billion of the $300 billion already spent in Iraq was redirected to achieving the UN Millennium Goals, the Bush administration could have already eradicated extreme global poverty and hunger. That would have been a glorifying act for this administration.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:02 pmExley,
Do you really think that it is important for Dubya to “put somebody in their place” when the entire world can now see the harm that he has caused in the Middle East? Is that what you think is important when their are Americans dying, while Bush “puts a reporter in his place”
BTW: Bush just made himself look like a fool in the world forum and you think it is cool. Next time you think Bush is doing something cool, stop, don’t type, walk away and don’t post.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:02 pmWhat a tool. I can’t believe people (few as they are these days)are willing to be seen in public with him. I am embarssed to even aknowledge that he is the leader of my country…hell any country.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:05 pm[...] Second: [...]
December 7th, 2006 at 1:06 pmSelf-centered president, assinine “administration”. The reported put him in his place. Good for the reporter!
December 7th, 2006 at 1:06 pmEvery question he’s asked gets funneled into the same morass of cliches. Hard to tell if he even understands what he’s being asked to address…worse than Nixon (never thought I’d be saying that).
December 7th, 2006 at 1:07 pmNeither one of those graphics in front or behind “W” is the official Presidential seal — it’s some sort of fake Bush-co concoction of what they think the seal should look like.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:07 pm“Bush responded curtly, “It’s bad in Iraq. That help?†and then chuckled.”
Anyone has any doubt left that the Chimp is a sociopath in the clinical sense of the term?
This President is demented. He needs to be institutionalized.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:07 pmWhat’s the object of the war again? Something about Caliphates?
December 7th, 2006 at 1:09 pmHas Dumbya been hitting the sauce again? Maybe. Shows all the signs. He is the most arrogant piece of shit for a president I have ever seen.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:11 pmHow many more times does Bush have to demonstrate to all of us that he is a sociopath before we start to believe it. The man clearly does not have what most of us call a conscience. He snickers and jokes about the most grave and disturbing things. He is a sociopathic, insecure bully, not only the worst president in history, but the worst man to hold the office in history.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:11 pmAnother one of the British press corp asked him (paraphased) “Based on the Iraq Study Group’s report, can you now admit that your policies in Iraq have been a failure? And can you also tell us if you intend to alter your current policies?” Bush didn’t respond to the first question (no surprise there!) and with his usual long-winded “lots of words and saying nothing manner,” avoided a substantive reply to the second part of the question.
Actually, watching this travesty of a press conference, he actually answered both questions: “No” and “Probably not.”
December 7th, 2006 at 1:13 pmExley, old buddy, this would be a sarcastic question:
When did you stop beating your wife?
This would not:
When did you stop beating off to Bush?
The former is designed only to irritate, the latter is founded in truth and intended to get an honest response. Bush couldn’t provide an honest answer, so he tried to make light of the situation, then seeing that didn’t work, just flat-out lied.
Yet you still worship this sociopathic motherf*cker… goddamn oxygen thief.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:15 pmSnotty reporter, sarcastic “question.†Dubya put him in his place. Good for Dubya!
—- Exley
Actually it was an honest question and your hero, Bush laughed, thought it was f*cking funny, like the uncaring sociopath he is.
Hard for me to decide who is a bigger asshat, Bush for thinking it was funny or you for running to the defense of your “hero”.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:15 pmAbout 25 to 30% of the population are “authoritarian personalities.” These people have a need for a strong leader, a need to follow, a strong need to defend the leader and an aversion to any challenge to authority. My guess is that almost everyone still supporting Bush is this kind of person.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:22 pmAnd we are surprised at Dubya’s response, ……….why?????
I think the W stands for WTF!!!!
December 7th, 2006 at 1:22 pmThe reporter wanted an answer to the question then he makes up a BS assumption that because Bush said “unsettling” that people are going to take that as still being in “denial”. All the reporter wanted was for Bush to agree with him and say “Yes, I don’t think thinks are that bad in Iraq”. If you make asinine statement you get a smart ass answer.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:23 pmBUSH: It’s bad in Iraq. That help? (Laughter)
Unforgiveable.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:26 pmSeriously people – I could spend all day picking apart your comments about President Bush. So, what – you all would be able to do better?? By doing what exactly? Seems like so many people here are able to criticze without having half a clue about what they are talking about. I especially love the comment above about spending war $ on erraticating poverty and hunger. HA – good luck. Go protest something, hippie!
I honestly hope that terrorists drop something in your proverbial backyards…or do something to disrupt the way you live your lives. Then maybe you’ll remember back to 9/11 and how it felt to feel threatened on US soil. But five years after the fact, some return to being naive, complacent little whiners.
It’s easy to sit on a board, post insults and continue with name-calling. Things are a little different when you have to MAKE hard decisions.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:29 pm#29
That’s probably what Bush was thinking when the reporter made a dumb assumption and that when Bush said “unsettling” that wasn’t the answer he was looking for.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:30 pmBUSH: You know, in all due respect, I’ve been saying it a lot. I understand how tough it is, and I’ve been telling the American people how tough it is. And they know how tough it is.
He went on to say, “I’m not in denial. I deny any implication that I am in any such state. Nope. Not me.”
December 7th, 2006 at 1:30 pmTracy, Exley, do you find that you are unsettled when you don’t have a strong leader telling you what to do or how to think?
December 7th, 2006 at 1:30 pm#30,
Or, with Bush, you say pretty much anything and you get a smart ass answer. It’s what he does.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:30 pm#32 “It’s easy to sit on a board, post insults and continue with name-calling.”
Yeah it is, isn’t it.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:32 pmI don’t care what Bush’s answer was. I’m just happy the questions are finally getting asked.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:32 pm#32 Tracy
Seriously people – I could spend all day picking apart your comments about President Bush. So, what – you all would be able to do better??
Yes. Why do you ask?
December 7th, 2006 at 1:34 pm#28….
December 7th, 2006 at 1:34 pmI agree with your perceptions, they also have a tendency to bully those whom they have authority over, in direct response to being bullied themselves.
“Dung rolls downhill…..”
We need to remember that G. Dubious is not his own master, he is owned and operated by corporate entities, and his unilateral bullying of others is in direct reaction to his being told what his actions and words are to be.
Another item from the cuddlefest with his fuzzy poodle this morning, is that “there will be no “early” talks with Syria or Iran”…
(read.. there will be no talks at all……..)
without reading the comments yet, here’s mine…
the pause after the assinine, “it’s bad in iraq”, made blair turn to look at the bozo… what i can’t tell is, did blair then smile/chuckle along with the nervous uncouth laughter that followed the smartass remark, “that help?”…
we could sure use more foreign reporters not beholden on the corporate teet to ask the real questions, that’s for sure…
December 7th, 2006 at 1:35 pm#33 Tracy -
I do feel that “unsettling” is a bit of an understatement for the damage and carnage to an entire country by an invading force commanded by The Decider and his Plundering Herd of Neocons.
Thank God for the Nov.7 intervention!!
December 7th, 2006 at 1:35 pmBush is a bully and there is no denying that. He bullies with his own version of humor, taking advantage of his position behind the podium. He does not owe the reporter a straight answer — he owes the world a straight answer. He hasn’t played straight with Americans or people around the world from the start.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:35 pmSympathizers can say he is in psychological denial; some of us say he is a diabolical, amoral despicable person.
Bush has a lot to answer for, and history will undoubtedly treat his legacy poorly. But he doesn’t care what historians think because he will be long dead and so will we; he has damned the people that follow us. He should be made to admit his abysmal failure and accept his just punishment.
Bluedog49, I think you are right on with that assessment. I tend to simplify and brand the Bushies as religious, faith-based folk, but those are probably both manifestations of the “authoritarian personality” dare I say, disorder, rather than any causality.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:36 pmInitially the “enemy” was the Iraqis trying to kill our soldiers (aka “insurgents”). Months and months ago the “enemy” started killing each other too (aka “civil war”).
Is Dubya recognizing that there is now a civil war in Iraq? I’m not holding my breath.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:36 pmIt’s easy to sit on a board, post insults and continue with name-calling. Things are a little different when you have to MAKE hard decisions.
Comment by Trish
You’re here, aren’t you? We welcome the assholierthanthou.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:36 pmBush wants Iran and Syria to save his butt, then he puts conditions on talking to them. What’s wrong with this picture?
December 7th, 2006 at 1:36 pmwhat you are seeing is a man who is “bored” now of the presidency. He is not up to the task of getting us removed from Iraq. He will leave it to his successor just like LBJ left it to Nixon to get the job done.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:37 pm#32:
December 7th, 2006 at 1:37 pmYou know, it’s so easy for you wingnuts to invoke 9/11 for your own gain. But to make it extraordinarily clear to you:
Ahem,
IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. AND NOTHING YOU SAY WILL CHANGE THAT.
And yet, you guys still support the war, as the violence rises to unimaginable levels.
If your so concerned with people being threatened, ask the Iraqis about how they feel. Discover the fear and discord you have sown into Baghdad and Iraq.
Trish: “I honestly hope that terrorists drop something in your proverbial backyards…”
Do we need any further proof that Bush’s supporters are despicable, unamerican sociopathic fascists. Thanks, Trish. You’ve made my point.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:38 pmYou admit its going bad… whaddya going to do?
Bush: “Ugh… Stay the course?!”
ITS BAD… DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Good lord.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:38 pmTrish, wow didn’t know you were such a coward?
What are you afraid of? A few terrorists, 99.99% of them cannot afford dinner, let alone coming here to attack, except once every 10 years or so. Why are you such a SCAREDY CAT? And these terrorists might not have had their day on 9-11 had Bush and Company listened to the PDB’s stating Osama is going to attack via airplane, and soon….
You’re such a mindless ass-kissing Bush lover, you make the world sick, I suppose only you know whats best, and the entire world who thinks Bush and his supporters are the worlds worst enemies?
Only CRAZY/STUPID people think they’re right, and everyone else is wrong.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:38 pmThat’s probably what Bush was thinking when the reporter made a dumb assumption and that when Bush said “unsettling†that wasn’t the answer he was looking for.
Comment by Tracy
George W. Bush answers to us. Remember? We The People? GWB needs to suck it up and remember that.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:39 pm“So, what – you all would be able to do better?? “=Trish
A 4 year old could do a better. Bush steadfastly refuses to fix the situation. He just sits back with his thumb in his mouth and plays the ’stay the course’ tape-recorder.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:41 pmWrong.
The reporter from the BBC asked Bush to agree with 75% of the people on the planet and Bush couldn’t and neither can you. That makes Bush and you wrong.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:42 pmI honestly hope that terrorists [...] do something to disrupt the way you live your lives.
Comment by Trish — December 7, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
They already have… have you got on a plane lately? Or traveled outside the US and got back? Or walked into a government building?
They changed all that without having to drop anything in my back yard. Of course, they did get a lot of help from an administration that plays on people’s fears.
Then maybe you’ll remember back to 9/11 and how it felt to feel threatened on US soil.
You seem to have forgotten Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But you just showed how much Pres Bush has played on your fears, too, by conflating the attacks with the occupation of Iraq.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:42 pmI honestly hope that terrorists drop something in your proverbial backyards…or do something to disrupt the way you live your lives.
Comment by Trish
Why do you hate America so much?
Talk about commenting on things you have clue about… b-b-b-beeeeyatch!!!
December 7th, 2006 at 1:42 pmA friggin otter could do better.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:42 pmspudgeboy……………exely is not mentally healthy. Articulate on and off perhaps……..sane no.
I wonder how much he’s being paid by psyops. He is just here to disrupt….no reasonable person can in good conscience support this president now…..that is obvious to almost everyone. I wouldn’t worry about him
December 7th, 2006 at 1:44 pmThe reporter made Bush be honest. Now, without a doubt, the MSM will have big headlines how Bush finally admits Iraq is “bad.”
Of course, in the manner he did it won’t be addressed – Forced to do so and the reply actually snotty and demeaning. It’s little wonder the globe thinks so little of the man. It’s like the old saying: “a fool in a high office is like a man high up on a hill. He looks small to everyone and everyone looks small to him.”
December 7th, 2006 at 1:44 pm#33 That’s probably what Bush was thinking…
Bush… “thinking”?
Brain-farting, perhaps, but not thinking.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:44 pmoops – “NO clue about” is what I meant there…
Sigh – valid point hamstrung by a typo…
My kingdom for an edit link.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:45 pmEver watch the monkeys in the zoo fling their poo? That’s the 30% of the population that still supports this administration…
December 7th, 2006 at 1:45 pmassholierthanthou Comment by Zooey
Down-right excellent!
I honestly hope that terrorists drop something in your proverbial backyards…or do something to disrupt the way you live your lives. Comment by Trish
Sounds like somebody needs to drop a house on YOU.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:45 pm#33 – Trish
It’s easy to sit on a board, post insults and continue with name-calling. Things are a little different when you have to MAKE hard decisions.
Comment by Trish
Yea Trish, it IS hard! And he makes them hard ones every day, just happens to be the wrong ones and the results get thousands of people killed and maimed.
Oh, BTW – I fought in a f*&ked up war just like this one 35 years ago, and we also had the same level of leadership. And with about the same results. The Vietnamese didn’t blow up the Trade Center, and neither did Iraq!
December 7th, 2006 at 1:46 pmOoops – Meant to say “NO clue about” on 57…
Sigh – Valid point hamstrung by a typo…
My kingdom for an edit link.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:47 pmi.e…..people who defend Bush now are in serious need of the adreniline rush of just being the opposition……a thorn. People like this need a life and can only feel alive by feeling people push back against them. I remember a Kroger checkout person who was fired for purposely going as slowly ( “inspecting” every item in a person’s stuff in case they got a bad product….yeah…for their own good….yeah) just to drive them nuts. It was his way of feeling connection…….provoking them and going against their interest in getting home quickly after shopping. Passive aggressivel. This is what the hold out Bush creeps are like. They aren’t even really for him half the time…..he’s just a good prop for their illness. Exactly. It’s all they have.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:48 pm#42
The carnage is being caused by American forces? Who is responsible for the frequent findings of groups of people slaughtered and tortured in Iraq? What about the 30 years of carnage and damage caused by Saddam and his sons?
December 7th, 2006 at 1:49 pmTrish: “Seriously people – I could spend all day picking apart your comments about President Bush. So, what – you all would be able to do better??”
A diseased strawman argument from a diseased person. Trish, the answer is yes, some of us would be able to do a better job than the worst ever.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:50 pmI honestly hope that terrorists drop something in your proverbial backyards…or do something to disrupt the way you live your lives. Comment by Trish
Awwwww look! Somebody needs a hug!
December 7th, 2006 at 1:50 pmWhere’s McCain?
I honestly hope that terrorists drop something in your proverbial backyards…or do something to disrupt the way you live your lives. Then maybe you’ll remember back to 9/11 and how it felt to feel threatened on US soil. But five years after the fact, some return to being naive, complacent little whiners.
It’s easy to sit on a board, post insults and continue with name-calling. Things are a little different when you have to MAKE hard decisions.
Comment by Trish —
Trust, if it drops in my backyard, your’s is next, B*tch
December 7th, 2006 at 1:50 pm#32 Trish
I honestly hope that terrorists drop something in your proverbial backyards…or do something to disrupt the way you live your lives. Then maybe you’ll remember back to 9/11 and how it felt to feel threatened on US soil. But five years after the fact, some return to being naive, complacent little whiners.
Yeah, that’s right, Trish. We need to be reminded by you and Bill O’Reilly about what happened on 9/11, because it was just so gosh darned long ago and our attention spans are so short. It’s just too bad you weren’t down there in Crawford in August of ‘01 to explain to your beloved president why he needed to pay attention to the PDB he’d been handed. I realize it’s hindsight and all, but I’m guessing that any one of us “whiners” would have sat up and taken notice if we’d just been warned that “Bin Ladin determined to strike in US” and “Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft”.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:50 pmSeriously people – I could spend all day picking apart your comments about President Bush. So, what – you all would be able to do better?? By doing what exactly? Seems like so many people here are able to criticze without having half a clue about what they are talking about. I especially love the comment above about spending war $ on erraticating poverty and hunger. HA – good luck. Go protest something, hippie!
I honestly hope that terrorists drop something in your proverbial backyards…or do something to disrupt the way you live your lives. Then maybe you’ll remember back to 9/11 and how it felt to feel threatened on US soil. But five years after the fact, some return to being naive, complacent little whiners.
It’s easy to sit on a board, post insults and continue with name-calling. Things are a little different when you have to MAKE hard decisions.
Comment by Trish — December 7, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
As you prove so well in your post.
Would you consider starting an illegal war a hard decision? You’re right. I think it would be hard to decide to send my fellow Americans to die for oil.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:51 pmMy, how absolutely patriotic of you to wish for the deaths of your own countrymen and women and hope for another terrorist attack on the US. I can practically hear the ‘Star-Spangled Banner’ playing in the background as I read your post.
As it’s been pointed out you’re a coward for allowing a handful of terrorists to control your sad, little life. You are much more likely to get killed in a car then by a terrorist. But, of course it’s not much fun to demand greater safety features in autos then (giggle) stand tall against terrorists.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:51 pm#52
“A few terrorists, 99.99% of them cannot afford dinner, let alone coming here to attack, except once every 10 years or so.”
Yes it’s not really the terrorist’s fault that they are forced to resort to blowing up innocent civilians.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:51 pmTrish is another big time loser
December 7th, 2006 at 1:53 pmSee, here’s where you liberal commie journalist types piss me off the worstest! Preznit Bush Jr. is TOO BUSY to be answerin’ questions all the time. He has IMPORTANT stuff to do. Did CAESAR answer a lot of questions? How about NAPOLEON? Did HE have a pack of jackal reporters nippin’ at his tiny little heels? ALEXANDER the GREAT would have only been ALEXANDER the MEDIOCRE if he had found hisself beset on the left and right by yapping, snapping, foaming journo-morons like Preznit Bush Jr. always does. So he loses his patience sometimes and comes off like an arrogant, browbeating thug. SO WHAT? He’s the PREZNIT! Of AMERICA! And as soon as he whups some MARTIAL LAW on you idiots, you’ll start to RESPECT that Freedom of the Press means Freedom to PRINT what yer friggin’ TOLD to!!!
December 7th, 2006 at 1:54 pm#55
“The reporter from the BBC asked Bush to agree with 75% of the people on the planet and Bush couldn’t and neither can you.”
He does agree that things are bad in Iraq. He’s been saying it for a while now.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:54 pm#65
“Oh, BTW – I fought in a f*&ked up war just like this one 35 years ago, and we also had the same level of leadership.”
Yes, Lyndon Johnson.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:57 pm“The reporter from the BBC asked Bush to agree with 75% of the people on the planet and Bush couldn’t and neither can you.â€
He does agree that things are bad in Iraq. He’s been saying it for a while now.
Comment by Tracy —
Tracy, get off your knees and stop sucking the Chimp’s d*ck. It won’t help you when the scary terrorists come and get you!!!!:D
December 7th, 2006 at 1:57 pmTruth Seeker: “Mr. President, are you aware that you’re illegally waging war against and occupying a sovereign nation that had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11?”
Bush: “It’s bad in Iraq. That help? You know, in all due respect, I’ve been saying it a lot. I understand how tough it is, and I’ve been telling the American people how tough it is…” to lie, cheat, murder, and steal the natural resources of a sovereign nation. You think this is easy? Do you think sleeping at night is easy? Well, luckily there are medications that assist that process but thats besides the point. The point is that we’re going to stay in Iraq until the Iraqi’s agree to only trade oil to the US. We’ve got 14 bases in Iraq I’ve spent just spent my wad of political capital of about a Trillion US tax dollars on. Do you know how much money that is? Thats about as much as I have in my trust fund. So you should know that I don’t take spending that kind of money lightly…
December 7th, 2006 at 1:59 pmSeems like so many people here are able to criticze without having half a clue about what they are talking about.
Comment by Trish — December 7, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
I know that Bush continually lies about almost everything to do with Iraq and when he doesn’t lie, he brushes it off like it’s this trivial border skirmish that will be over in time for all the soldiers to order pizza for dinner. When he’s caught in a lie he zips past it like he didn’t do anything wrong.
If anything the reporter showed remarkable restraint. If I were in the press corp, I would either be constantly saying “Would you please answer the previous reporters question?” or they remove me from the room for being “disruptive” I may not know what it’s like to make the tough decisions, but I can tell when someone isn’t paying attention in class.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:59 pm#68 – Trish
And you think by us being there after we illegally invaded their country, established the perfect environment for a secular civil war, where over 90% of the population wants us the f*&k out?
We have improved things, ya think?
WHEWWW!!, you really have drank the Neocon Kool-aid… from a fire hose!!!
December 7th, 2006 at 2:02 pmTracy-
December 7th, 2006 at 2:02 pmYou don’t really believe that American troops are actually helping the situation in Iraq, do you?
It’s so easy to paint the other side as “evil” with no souls, and no hearts. It’s so easy to say that their only motives are that they hate America and our freedoms, and puppies and sunshine and people in general.
Terrorism is a much more rooted issue than you are giving it credit for. And American soldiers won’t be able to solve it entirely.
There is really no point in keeping them there any longer.
No he hasn’t you fu*king liar.
Just yesterday Bush said that we are winning in Iraq to counter Robert Gates. You can lie to yourself. We don’t believe your lies. Liar.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:03 pmSwordsbane, part of the problem is that if a reporter does this, he might not be allowed in the room again. I’m not excusing their behavior, but the press has been put in a very difficult position by this administration. I think we need some kind of legislation to protect the integrity of white house reporting.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:03 pmI think one of the biggest denials in this entire discussion is that so many don’t think that this Islamic fundementalism is that big of a deal.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:04 pmTracy,
quick look outside, I heard that the terrorists are in your backyard!!:D
December 7th, 2006 at 2:05 pmSo, Tracy, you seem to be saying that Johnson was a failed leader and , at the same time, comparing Johnson to Bush. Is this some kind of a turnaround on your part? Are you now agreeing that Bush is a failed leader?
December 7th, 2006 at 2:05 pm#80
Your post fits so well in this high class blog! I’m impressed.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:06 pmDo you think that a swipe at a lame Democrat affects us. We aren’t democrats. LBJ made just as bad of decisions as Bush is making.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:06 pm#79 – Tracy
Yea, and LBJ was a Texan too!!! And don’t forget Trickie Dickie, the Poster Child of the Repugs. He was a real keeper! But Dubya makes even HIM look good.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:08 pm#80
Your post fits so well in this high class blog! I’m impressed.
Comment by Tracy
You should be impressed, beyotch!! But not half as impressed as you are with the Chimps’s d*ck!!!:D
December 7th, 2006 at 2:08 pmYes we do, that is why we support the war in Afghanistan. That is part of the GWOT. Iraq has nothing to do with the GWOT. You believe it does, but 75% of the world does not.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:09 pmTrish and Exley are buffoons…
Explain the sarcasm in the question Ex – at least in this story there is audio so you don’t have to speculate about the “tone” of voice (a la the Jim Webb/Bush encounter), not that it makes any difference. How does a lame answer and a desperate chuckle deserve a well done?
Trish – refresh my memory again about Iraqi involvement with 9/11? Specifically, the role Sadam Hussein played in it? Since bringing HIS regime down was the only reason we went there after that whole WMD thing turned out to be a LIE. Well? Don’t be so naive and think that this President is handling his duties better than anyone else could have. It isn’t like he was an accomplished statesman before (he couldn’t run a baseball team, much less a country), and now you put blind faith in the man?
Twits the both of you.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:12 pmI’ve been a Democrat all my adult life and have no problem admitting that LBJ was a failure with his war policy. LBJ also pushed JFK’s idea of civil rights legislation, partially saving his legacy. What has Bush done besides make the world less safe for everyone?
December 7th, 2006 at 2:12 pmTracy: “I think one of the biggest denials in this entire discussion is that so many don’t think that this Islamic fundementalism is that big of a deal.”
Tracy, since you’re so up on this subject, tell us, are al Qaeda Sunnis or Shiites? Which kind of Sunni or Shiite are they. I mean, you’re so right. We need to be up on all of this stuff we’ve been forgetting.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:16 pmIMO there is a sexual element for some of the Bush zealots. And likely with some there is a homo-erotic element to the adoration of Bush (keeping in mind the name ‘Tracy’ isn’t gender specific.)
Of course, they would never admit it to themselves or anyone else. But I would hazard to guess that with some right-wing males Dubya gives them a sensation that is confusing and arousing. And certainly it would cloud their judgment as to his policies and motivate them to defend Bush’s honor – as we see so often on these boards.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:16 pmWhenever a reporter asks a tough question, Bush, Snow and former WH Press Sec. never call on them again. Look what they did with Helen Thomas, or didn’t you notice???? Helen asked the HARD questions and she was NEVER called on again … This is the way that Bush keeps the “Press in line”.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:17 pmSwordsbane, part of the problem is that if a reporter does this, he might not be allowed in the room again. I’m not excusing their behavior, but the press has been put in a very difficult position by this administration. I think we need some kind of legislation to protect the integrity of white house reporting.
Comment by Bluedog49 — December 7, 2006 @ 2:03 pm
That’s precisely why he should do it. More than even the President, these reporters have a responsibility to the public. I can’t understand why the networks tolerate this and why we tolerate it from our networks. Everyone but Bush now says the war is going into the crapper. Even the generals on the ground say that things are worse now than they were a year ago, and Bush still gets away with saying “It’s bad. Does that help?” Bush is a liar. He’s probably the biggest one that’s ever sat the chair in the oval office, but he’s not the real problem. He would shape up in a second if he couldn’t get away with his and his administrations spin. THAT is the fault of the a**holes reporting on him. When do the f**king gloves come off? How bad do things have to get?
December 7th, 2006 at 2:17 pmTweedster,
Let’s not forget Arbusto Oil, George W Bush’s Oil company couldn’t find oil in TEXAS!
December 7th, 2006 at 2:17 pm#96 – Bluedog
Stole my words!!!
So to paraphrase from Mr. Colbert ——— “Dubya…..a terrible President, or the WORST President?”
December 7th, 2006 at 2:19 pm#96:
December 7th, 2006 at 2:19 pmYour statement’s a bit false.
President Bush has helped make the world save for the .000001% of Americans who live at the top.
#
About 25 to 30% of the population are “authoritarian personalities.†These people have a need for a strong leader, a need to follow, a strong need to defend the leader and an aversion to any challenge to authority. My guess is that almost everyone still supporting Bush is this kind of person.
Comment by Bluedog49 — December 7, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
Yes, just like in Germany back in the 30’s. A good percentage of the rest of the population were just plain scared of their government. Sound familiar?
Trish, Tracy and Exeley…go back to your handlers and stay off this board. You people remind me of “Smith” in the movie, Matrix. We woke up and aren’t connected to your damn machine anymore. You have NOTHING to say that is possibly going to convince anyone here to support this monstrous administration.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:19 pmHe does agree that things are bad in Iraq. He’s been saying it for a while now.
Comment by Tracy — December 7, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
This is simply not true. What Pres Bush has been saying all along is that the situation is good, improving, and that the US is “winning the war” (whatever that might mean).
His administration only hinted about a change in the “stay the course” motto until very recently.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:19 pmIraq has nothing to do with the GWOT. You believe it does, but 75% of the world does not.
Comment by SpudgeBoy — December 7, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
You mean it didn’t. Since we invaded, the terrorists have been helping themselves to the new recruits we keep sending their way. Ironic that Bush can now claim that Iraq is important to the war on terror. He made it releveant.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:21 pmHis neo con advisors (wolfowitz et.al) said Iraq would be able to support itself with its oil revenues and we would be out in six months or a year….
Why listen to Bush now? The level of stupidity is just unbeleivable.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:22 pm#101 – Spudgeboy
Good one!!
As they say in Texas —— How do you become a Texas millionaire? Start with Daddy’s billion!!
December 7th, 2006 at 2:22 pmI think one of the biggest denials in this entire discussion is that so many don’t think that this Islamic fundementalism is that big of a deal.
Comment by Tracy — December 7, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
This is a strawman argument since nobody has downplayed the dangers of radical Islam -which are no different from the dangers fundamentalist Christians posed to a secular, democratic form of government.
Can you defend Pres Bush’s policies without resorting to a strawman?
December 7th, 2006 at 2:26 pmTRACY and TRISHY
December 7th, 2006 at 2:30 pmsittin’ in a tree
b-l-o-w-i-n-g…
…
i’m outta here… another freeper fest…
#110,
They can’t defend Bush’s policies with the strawmen. Lord knows they try, though.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:34 pmTrue that.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:42 pm#84
“You don’t really believe that American troops are actually helping the situation in Iraq, do you?”
As far as the internal sectarian violence is concerned at this point in time….no. The ONLY reason I think that we still need to be there, in a much smaller role BTW, is to make sure that Iran, the true culprit in this whole situation, doesn’t turn Iraq into another puppet state for them like Lebanon currently is. I think that the initial premise of trying to change that region for the better by promoting democracy was a good idea in and of itself, considering Iran IS NOT a democracy, but I just don’t think the culture over there will allow it any time soon. I do think however, that we need to get out of Iraq just to get out of the way and let the Iraqis settle things themselves.
“It’s so easy to paint the other side as “evil†with no souls, and no hearts. It’s so easy to say that their only motives are that they hate America and our freedoms, and puppies and sunshine and people in general.”
So what exactly are there motives? Don’t say I don’t know, it would only reinforce what those who study the terrorists already know.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:44 pmIs it just me or am I missing something here?
We went into Iraq for the WMD threat……. Oops, not there.
No no, NOW we are here to establish a Democracy, How is that working out for everyone?
THEN….. we are there to stem the Genocide and ethnic cleansing, which is the REAL reason, right??
If so, why aren’t we in Darfur, same thing over there, and they also have some oil, just not as much, maybe?? What, no Bush Family investments there? Halliburton can’t make the same margins?
December 7th, 2006 at 2:46 pmTracy, you act like you know what you’re talking about, yet refused to answer my simple question: are al Qaeda Sunnis or Shiites and what kind of Sunnis or Shiites would they be. You also claim Iran is the “true culprit.” What exactly do you mean by that. We invaded their neighbor. Before we invaded their neighbor, we supplied their neighbor with weapons to use to kill Iranians. WTF are you talking about?
December 7th, 2006 at 2:50 pmSo Tracy, If George has been saying for quite a while that things are bad in iraq, whay has he been bemoaning the lack of coverage for all of the “good things” happening there? Whhy has he not done anything to try and change the situation other than to stay the course and say over annd over that we are winning?
December 7th, 2006 at 2:51 pmI could have sworn it was the United States along with the Coalition of the willing that invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003. Who could have guessed it was really Iranians in disguise.
Funny, their president was elected just like Bush was. Same with Hugo Chavez. Just because you don’t like who is elected doesn’t mean it isn’t a democracy.
If that is how you interpret democracies, then the US does not have a democracy, because 66% of Americans don’t agree with or like Bush.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:51 pmIran forming a puppet state as opposed to the US puppet state it is currently?
December 7th, 2006 at 2:52 pmIt would actually be hilarious how deluded the Bushites are in their devotion to this diddering fool.
Exley is a favorite of mine because of he’s dresses up the most pathetically moronic arguments in a George Will-like diction and syntax.
Keep on shining your Fool’s Gold buddy, you are not fooling anyone!
As for Tracey and Trish, they are just plain idiots.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:52 pmTracy,
How is Iran the true culprit in this situation? The true benefactor, perhaps, but the only culprits here are the coalition of the willing to be led over a cliff.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:57 pmTracy,
” the initial premise of trying to change that region for the better by promoting democracy was a good idea…”
So that is why we invaded Iraq? So good of you to tell us that, instead of the lies our men died for.
Your boy Bush is the enemy of America, more so than any fundamentalist Muslim. Bush has done more to harm us than Osama, Sadam, or any other person on earth.
My dog has a bad habit of eating shit and throwing up on the back porch. It’s amazing, but I see Bush in the slimy pile. I could sell it on ebay or I could give you a “buy-it-now” opportunity to have a reminder of your hero.
That’s the level of respect I have for your boy.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:58 pmTrish, wow didn’t know you were such a coward?
What are you afraid of? A few terrorists, 99.99% of them cannot afford dinner, let alone coming here to attack, except once every 10 years or so. Why are you such a SCAREDY CAT? And these terrorists might not have had their day on 9-11 had Bush and Company listened to the PDB’s stating Osama is going to attack via airplane, and soon….
You’re such a mindless ass-kissing Bush lover, you make the world sick, I suppose only you know whats best, and the entire world who thinks Bush and his supporters are the worlds worst enemies?
Only CRAZY/STUPID people think they’re right, and everyone else is wrong.
Comment by BanReligion — December 7, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
Guess again, they’re secretly here right now. Think about the open Mexican border, hmmm. Also, more terrorist cells are recruiting non-arab people. They’re also being secretly financed by other middle eastern regions. Please read “Fight Back Liddy Style” by G. Gordon Liddy.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:00 pmwhat’s a guy got to do to get a little leadership around this place?
December 7th, 2006 at 3:05 pmThe ONLY reason I think that we still need to be there, in a much smaller role BTW, is to make sure that Iran, the true culprit in this whole situation, doesn’t turn Iraq into another puppet state for them like Lebanon currently is.
I do think however, that we need to get out of Iraq just to get out of the way and let the Iraqis settle things themselves.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:05 pmTracy..both of these statements came out of your mouth in a single post. So…which IS it? Got logic?
iran is a democracy. they elect their leaders. they are more democratic than most middle eastern countries, except israel.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:07 pmAlso read “Dress Slick Liddy Style” and “Cook Eggs Liddy Style” The eggs book has a chapter that kicks terrorists’ ass!
December 7th, 2006 at 3:07 pm#123 – Daryll
G Gordon Freaking Liddy!!!!! Our Poster Boy from the Trickie Dickie Fun Show??? Now there is a person we ALL can look up to, right along with his buddy, Mr. Ollie (Iran/Contra) North.
Where do you get these books? The Ann Coultergeist Memorial Library????
BTW, say Hi to Daryll and your other brother Daryll.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:07 pmGuess again, they’re secretly here right now. Think about the open Mexican border, hmmm. Also, more terrorist cells are recruiting non-arab people. They’re also being secretly financed by other middle eastern regions. Please read “Fight Back Liddy Style†by G. Gordon Liddy.
Comment by Daryll
I also heard they shoot terrorists over here from a big cannon in Cuba. We must build a huge net over Florida before more come over to undermine our freedom. And don’t get me started about the open Canadian border I mean terrorists would never think of coming over that way. Or how about airplanes…or boats. No its the Mexican border that’s is the problem. I heard they drive taxi cabs…..thank god a Repub Congressman pointed that one out. I’ll bet they all start to have little terrorist babies and in a generation they can vote and get elected….ah then where will we be. Shall we only allow the white male to vote again?
December 7th, 2006 at 3:09 pm#116
December 7th, 2006 at 3:09 pmBluedog49, you know that you’re making the wingnuts heads spin, don’t you?
Facts aren’t exactly the strong suit of kool-aid drunks.
And the US is worse with YOU in office…That help?
December 7th, 2006 at 3:10 pmThings are a little different when you have to MAKE hard decisions.
Comment by Trish — December 7, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
Yeah. It’s so damned hard figuring out what is going on in Iraq. You want to jump on somebody? How about starting with this joke of an administration.
Quotes (paraphrased) from:
Bush: “We are winning in Iraq.”
Cheney: “The general overall situation in Iraq is going remarkably well.”
Robert Gates: “We are not winning in Iraq.”
Tony Snow, in response to a reporter’s question: “Are we winning in Iraq? I don’t know. How do you define winning?”
December 7th, 2006 at 3:13 pmDo you make sure to check under the bed before you wet it?
December 7th, 2006 at 3:17 pm[...] Hi Geroge, welcome to reality…When questioned about weather he was still in denial about Iraq Bush said “It’s bad in Iraq…That help?” well of course we know it’s bad but thanks for letting us know that you joined the party that is reality. Think Progress has a video HERE. [...]
December 7th, 2006 at 3:17 pmThe ONLY reason I think that we still need to be there, in a much smaller role BTW, is to make sure that Iran, the true culprit in this whole situation, doesn’t turn Iraq into another puppet state for them like Lebanon currently is.
Comment by Tracy — December 7, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
And think Iraq, Iran were sworned enemies until the Bush (mis)administration had the magnificent idea of invading Iraq, create a power vacuum within that country by gutting all institutions -hence generating a regional power vacuum and leave Iran with no counterbalance.
You’d think the genius of the people at the White House could have foreseen some of these developments, wouldn’t you?
Instead, here you are defending all these misguided policies tooth and nail. The same policies that have made the US less secure not more, and that have left Iran as the regional hegemon.
I think that the initial premise of trying to change that region for the better by promoting democracy was a good idea in and of itself,
Ahem… the main reason for invading Iraq was to rid Hussein’s regime of those WMD, not regime change. May I remind you that going to war for the sole purpose of regime change is contrary to international law.
What do you do when the people you are supposedly helping are shooting at you instead of thanking you?
considering Iran IS NOT a democracy, but I just don’t think the culture over there will allow it any time soon.
Iran is a democracy -albeit far from perfect. They do hold elections and elect the president and the members of the Parliament.
I do think however, that we need to get out of Iraq just to get out of the way and let the Iraqis settle things themselves.
So, does the US still need to be there or not? On the other hand, thanks for recognising what many of us here have been saying for months: The invasion was a bad idea from the very beginning, the occupation was an even worse project to undertake, and the “stay the course” meme is a sham.
The US is not the world’s vigilante.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:18 pmbush, the lying piece of crap has to be hit over the head to realize how much he has f@cked up iraq.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:21 pm#85
He has said for a long time that things are “tough” in Iraq. If you want to get into semantics you are on your own SpungeBOY.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:25 pm#91
“We aren’t democrats.”
Yeah you’re liberal…even worse
December 7th, 2006 at 3:26 pmNew Yorker said:
“Anyone has any doubt left that the Chimp is a sociopath in the clinical sense of the term?
This President is demented. He needs to be institutionalized.”
Many people believe the President is a sociopath, but do you really think he needs to be institutionalized? It’s not like he’s a danger to society…. oh, wait — never mind.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:26 pmThe presidents job as well as being the decider, is also to not needlessly worry his countrymen in a time of war.
We are all his children,he is like a father to the american people.
Thanks for not worrying my beautiful mind with such things dad.
TP and it`s posters could take a lesson from the president.
What you see now is what you get,a strong leader,in difficult times.
There will be no elections in 08.
Wait and see.
tina
December 7th, 2006 at 3:26 pm#92
“But Dubya makes even HIM look good. ”
How many American troops were killed under LBJ’s command?
December 7th, 2006 at 3:28 pm#137 Tracy,
How would Bush KNOW it is tough over there, he had to have his latest Iraqi meeting in freaking JORDAN, because it wasn’t safe enough for him.
And he is also the little National Guard FlyBoy who didn’t want to go to Vietnam and wasn’t even up to finishing his tour in the NG.
What a total LOSER!!!!! But he is YOUR loser right?
December 7th, 2006 at 3:29 pmWhat the “HELL”is there to chuckle about….. 100 solders have died in the last 5 weeks…… 31 have died alone this month and today is only the 7th. and He wants to chukle…..This Man is Sick and is detached from what is really going on… Someone needs to Stop Him……
December 7th, 2006 at 3:29 pmYou know, in all due respect, I’ve been saying it a lot. [I've been saying that] I understand how tough it is, and I’ve been telling the American people [that I understand] how tough it is. And they know how tough it is [and they keep trying to tell me about it 'cuz they seem to think that I don't really understand... something about nobody in my family serving in the current military or somesuch nonsense].
And the fundamental question is: Do we have a plan to achieve our objective? [And the answer is "well of course we have to plan to achieve our objective, otherwise it wouldn't be our objective -- we'd be objecting to something else." Duh.] Are we willing to change as the enemy has changed? [And clearly, as I've lead us into neoconservofascism, we're quite willing to change as the enemy has changed. So the answer is a resounding yes! Now I know some of those nay-saying defeatocrats want to say that we shouldn't change like our enemies, but they clearly don't understand that this is the fundamental struggle of 1984. Osama bin Laden believes that War is Peace and Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength, so we're going to meet him and defeat him on those. United we Stand, These colors don't run, and God Bless America.]
December 7th, 2006 at 3:30 pm[...] Gewitzt ist er ja. QUESTION: Mr. President, the Iraq Study Group described the situation in Iraq as “grave and deteriorating.†You said that the increase in attacks is “unsettling.†That will convince many people that you’re still in denial about how bad things are in Iraq and question your sincerity about changing course. [...]
December 7th, 2006 at 3:31 pm#137…
December 7th, 2006 at 3:33 pmyes, he has used that word often, as has the ex-secretary of war, Donnie boy.
The delivery has always had the inflection of “that’s to bad, sorry, better luck next time…”
People are dying in Iraq and he has the nerve to be flip about it? Can someone give him a blowjob so that we can impeach him?
December 7th, 2006 at 3:33 pmfacts
figures
books
tools
knowledge
postings
Mere dung under my feet.
This president will prevail.
With or without democratic help and support
There will be no elections in 08
How do I know you ask?
I have seen the memo
I will say no more
December 7th, 2006 at 3:36 pm# 141 – Tracy
I was in that one and also was against it, so can’t we learn anything from our past… if not, we are doomed to repeat it, as they say. And Boy are we ever repeating it.
With Dubya in charge, we will have to have a wall bigger than the Vietnam memorial to hold the names of this current adventure. The weekly numbers are getting painfully close lately.
And a difference between LBJ and the Decider, LBJ actually CARED and cried about the troops he was losing, that’s why he wouldn’t run again. Can’t really say the same for your guy.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:36 pm#94
“Yes we do, that is why we support the war in Afghanistan.”
Well that is where your small thinking shows. You seem to think apparently that Islamic fundmentalism only exists in Afghanistan just as you probably think that al Qaeda is only in Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam was an attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East (not oil so don’t even try it)….the ONLY thing that will solve the problem of Islamic fundementalism BTW, and lessen Iran’s goal of total Islamic fundementalist rule in that region.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:39 pmAnd a difference between LBJ and the Decider, LBJ actually CARED and cried about the troops he was losing, that’s why he wouldn’t run again. Can’t really say the same for your guy.
Comment by upside00 — December 7, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
Nobody knew LBJ cried until long AFTER he was gone!
December 7th, 2006 at 3:40 pmOh man, I hate to feed the trolls but here goes…
Tracy: “Yeah you’re liberal…even worse”
Quick question, Tracy, who would you rather have in control in Iran — liberals or conservatives? Given that “liberal” is synonymous with “westernized” and “conservative” with “hard-liners”, I’m guessing you’ll have a hard ime answering.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:41 pm#151
Pistol, and your point is??? At least he had remorse. Dubya wouldn’t know how to spell the word, let alone feel it.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:46 pm“democracy…the ONLY thing that will solve the problem of Islamic fundementalism”
How’s that been working out? You do realize that “Islamic Fundamentalism” just means that they are devout in their beliefs. Its the violent terrorism I thought we had a problem with and, guess what? That’s been on a more than steady rise since Bush’s war began. So, much so that Bush has attempted to keep the studies under wraps.
“(not oil so don’t even try it)”
How do you explain the major oil companies dividing up Iraq’s oil fields only weeks after the Administration took office?
I sincerely do wish I could live in your world where I would believe that my Government could do no wrong, but I just can’t. I wake up everyday and face reality.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:47 pmTracy, since you’re so up on this subject, tell us, are al Qaeda Sunnis or Shiites? Which kind of Sunni or Shiite are they. I mean, you’re so right. We need to be up on all of this stuff we’ve been forgetting.
Comment by Bluedog49 — December 7, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
While you are at it, Tracy, tell us…what’s the percentage of individuals fighting against the U.S. in Iraq that are actually terrorists? Something like 7%? And tell us, Tracy, how do you tell the difference between an insurgent and a terrorist? Are they the same? Do they wear uniforms identifying them as such? Do they have tattoos?
December 7th, 2006 at 3:49 pm#138 Tracy
“We aren’t democrats.â€
Yeah you’re liberal…even worse
A fascist would think so.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:51 pmPlan?
No.
Change?
Hah.
Simple answers to stupid questions.
Bush has never had a plan other than to steal everything he can for himself and his buddies. Other than that, I don’t think the man thinks at all.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:52 pmPresidents in the more recent past have been failures in one way or other – Johnson for Viet Nam, Nixon for abuse of power, Reagan for Iran Contra, Clinton for sex – but each of them has also been able to counter the negativity with some positive governmental aspects of their administration: Johnson’s Great Society (Medicare and Head Start) Nixon’s international trade, Reagan didn’t accomplish much for the people, but Russia crumbled and the Berlin wall came down, and people credited him for those events and liked him. Clinton presided over the best economy in decades; he was liked around the world.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:54 pmBush has accomplished nothing for the people. The poor and middle class are worse under his reign as jobs are eliminated by the thousands, personal savings are at their lowest. He has turned a budget surplus into a defiicit, trade balance is worse, people around the world despise him (and us by association) the war has killed many, wounded many more and de-stabilized an unstable region — the world is much more dangerous today. He has nothing, nothing, nothing in the positive column of his presidency.
He is in denial. He is the eternal smart-aleck, arrogant and bullying.
He is an abysmal failure.
Impeach the b*st*rd NOW!!!
December 7th, 2006 at 3:56 pm“It’s bad in Iraq. That help?â€
Doesn’t help you, George. It’s bad in Iraq because you suck.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:57 pm.
Well that is where your small thinking shows. You seem to think apparently that Islamic fundmentalism only exists in Afghanistan just as you probably think that al Qaeda is only in Afghanistan.
Well, that is where your exploitable ignorance shows, since Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda, but the invasion gave them an opening.
Now there’s al Qaeda in Afghanistan AND Iraq.
Why do you support policies that fail America? Why do you hate America?
December 7th, 2006 at 3:59 pm.
So, is he a better comedian in chief than commander in chief?
December 7th, 2006 at 4:00 pmAbsoulutely.
Is he willing to change course to acheive anything other than complete and utter failure?
No, how’s that! heh…
#158 – Marie
Right on!!! We have a situation here that is unprecedented in our history …… a 2 term president with nothing to show for his time in office.
At least nothing humane or positive. And the world IS watching us. Over 200 years of work to become the World Leader and he destroyed that with a few years of (minimal) effort. Cause, we all know he HATES hard work!!
December 7th, 2006 at 4:00 pm#96
“What has Bush done besides make the world less safe for everyone?”
He is actually confronting a problem that has been growing since the Iranian Islamic revolution in 1979.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:00 pmHe is actually confronting a problem that has been growing since the Iranian Islamic revolution in 1979.
Comment by Tracy
Confronting and solving are two different animals.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:04 pm…and, alas, he is doing so in a manner that raises the legitimacy and of nations like Iran and weakens the US. I don’t understand how or why you support the man and his polices when it’s clear that they are both failing.
You mistake action for progress. There is more than one way forward here. You and your president have had their chance. Now things are much worse than they were and the cost to the nation is unimaginable. It’s time to try something different.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:04 pm[Bush] is actually confronting a problem that has been growing since the Iranian Islamic revolution in 1979.
Comment by Tracy
By giving them another country to work from? The CIA and Mossad and fourteen other intelligence agencies have been saying that Bush’s policies for over a year now.
How is that “confronting”? Huh?
This isn’t a movie, you idiot. Bush is bin Laden’s bitch and has been for years. If you were serious about fighting terrorism you’d realize that before anything else can be done, Bush has to go. He’s done nothing but promote terrorism for years.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:06 pm.
I think that the initial premise of trying to change that region for the better by promoting democracy was a good idea in and of itself, considering Iran IS NOT a democracy, but I just don’t think the culture over there will allow it any time soon.
Comment by Tracy — December 7, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
Did you mean Iraq instead of Iran? If so, invading a country and toppling its leader, no matter how bad he is, is NOT the way to do promote democracy. And let’s not forget that candidate Bush in 2000 told us that if elected, the U.S. would not be the policemen of the world, nor would we be nation builders. Yet that’s exactly what we are doing.
And sorry, but I don’t want to hear “Yes, but 9/11 changed everything.” Bush is on record as saying that even if he had known in 2003 that Iraq did not have WMD’s, he’d still invade Iraq to get rid of Saddam. Which to me means it was never about the threat of WMD’s to begin with. Maybe you have a different take on it, and that’s fine.
I do think however, that we need to get out of Iraq just to get out of the way and let the Iraqis settle things themselves.
Comment by Tracy — December 7, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
Nice to see that we agree on something.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:06 pmNow here’s a thread. Someone with some serious balls/ovaries freakin asked an excellent qwarshtin.
“Uh I hear its bad, that help?”
December 7th, 2006 at 4:09 pmSo Tracy, If George has been saying for quite a while that things are bad in iraq, whay has he been bemoaning the lack of coverage for all of the “good things†happening there? Whhy has he not done anything to try and change the situation other than to stay the course and say over annd over that we are winning?
Comment by Mark — December 7, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
Several months ago CBS reporter Lara Logan said that they want to report the good news, but our own State Department will not let them. Reason? The terrorists will find out about the new school, or new hospital, etc…and then go destroy it.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:09 pmExley calls the reporter snotty like its a bad thing. Like calling a strong woman a bitch. Its a compliment.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:10 pm#150 Tracy
“Yes we do, that is why we support the war in Afghanistan.â€
Well that is where your small thinking shows. You seem to think apparently that Islamic fundmentalism only exists in Afghanistan just as you probably think that al Qaeda is only in Afghanistan.
Islamic fundamentalism is all over the world. It is NOT synonymous with terrorism. It’s a term that right-wingers like to use to try to tie “Islam” to “terrorism” in people’s minds. Right-wingers must always have their ethnic boogie men, you know. If you want to talk about terrorists, say “terrorists”. If you want to talk about al Qaeda, say “al Qaeda”. Neither Islamic fundamentalism nor al Qaeda nor terrorism are/were only in Afghanistan and nobody here ever thought so. But, what WAS in Afghanistan was the mastermind of the 9/11 attack, his leaders, and his protectors. We went in there just long enough to break up the Taliban, shove them out of power, and chase bin Laden into the hills. That was a good start. Too bad that’s as far as it went before Bush started pulling troops out of Afghanistan, where al Qaeda was, and sending tem into Iraq, where al Qaeda wasn’t.
The invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam was an attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East (not oil so don’t even try it)….the ONLY thing that will solve the problem of Islamic fundementalism BTW, and lessen Iran’s goal of total Islamic fundementalist rule in that region.
Cheney and Bush both said things in the weeks just before the election to suggest that it was about oil. It was a big reason they gave for wanting to keep troops there. You’re not contradicting them, are you? And, you can’t possibly be serious that our invasion of Iraq is doing anything to hurt Iran. Saddam Hussein did a hell of a lot more to keep Iran from taking over the region than we ever did.
And how do you feel about the Islamic fundamentalists in the friendly nations of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? Shall we be invading them soon?
December 7th, 2006 at 4:15 pmMay I remind you that going to war for the sole purpose of regime change is contrary to international law.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — December 7, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
And thus the trumped up charges of WMDs as the cover story?
Shades of the Downing Street Minutes and “facts being fixed around policy.”
Remember, as I have posted, Bush recently said he’d still invade Iraq even with today’s knowledge that there were no WMDs.
Plus, recall that Powell and Rice both said in 2001 that Iraq was not a threat to its neighbors or the U.S.; the sanctions were working; Iraq was contained; and Saddam did not have the capacity to create WMDs, including nuclear weapons.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:21 pmSpungeBOY.
Comment by Tracy — December 7, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
Oooooo…name calling!
Careful…you don’t want to become one of “us.”
December 7th, 2006 at 4:23 pmTracy’s logic is to debate as
December 7th, 2006 at 4:26 pmTracing comics is to art
“He is actually confronting a problem that has been growing since the Iranian Islamic revolution in 1979. ”
And who were they revolting against and who put him in place?
December 7th, 2006 at 4:28 pmOh, I would have asked “why” they put him in place, but the answer has to do with “oil” and you don’t want anyone to go there. Too bad for you, though, it might give you a more realistic and less faith-based view of our foreign policy.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:32 pmWhile we’re at it, Tracy, since you just hate to hear anyone say our little adventure in Iraq has something to do with oil, perhaps you’d like to give us your guess as to why Dick Cheney’s energy panel was going over maps of Iraq in early 2001 that showed the oil fields, the pipelines, the truck routes and oil terminals. Do you think Dick and Kenny Boy and the other conspirators…er…energy executives were planning to present Saddam with a business proposition? Hmmmmm.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:43 pmTracing Tracy doesn’t seem to be old enough or at least aware enough to know that the progressive, grass-roots anti-war movement was instrumental in LBJ’s decision not to run for re-election. We stopped one of our own, in other words. Too bad the neocons/Republicans didn’t take the same approach with Bush.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:45 pmWrong. Al Qaeda is in Pakistan. There never was an al Qaeda in Iraq until December 4, 2004 when Zarqawi pledge allegiance to Osama. Stupid.
According to your masters, we invaded Iraq because they lied and said Saddam did have WMDs. We DID NOT go to Iraq to spread democracy , as that is against international law.
So, we are trying to build democracy in Iraq to stop Iran’s democracy? You are pretty simple minded aren’t you?
December 7th, 2006 at 4:50 pmTough is only a synonym of bad in a Michael Jackson song dip shEt.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:51 pmWe aren’t liberals either dumb fu*k.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:52 pmDon’t let your masters hear you compare Iraq to Vietnam. You might not get to lick their boots tonight.
December 7th, 2006 at 4:53 pmActually, I AM a liberal and proud to be one. I LIBERALLY apply the principles of the Constitution of the U.S. in order to LIBERALLY support individual rights across time and circumstances.
If you call yourself a “conservative”, I’d sure like to know what you have been “conserving” lately.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:00 pmWho cares he could confront China all day long, doesn’t mean they are going to change. ShEt we confront you every freakin day and you are still a Bush apologist.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:01 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC),
I can’t be called a liberal. I like guns and killing stuff for food. I also support the death penalty, as some people need killin’. So, Tracy calling me a liberal is a joke. Things just aren’t simple simple as the simple minded republican Bush bootlickers would like for them to be.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:06 pmYou seem to think apparently that Islamic fundmentalism only exists in Afghanistan just as you probably think that al Qaeda is only in Afghanistan.
Comment by Tracy — December 7, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
And this is where your small thinking shows: AlQaeda and Islamic fundamentalism are not synonymous.
The invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam was an attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East (not oil so don’t even try it)….
Comment by Tracy — December 7, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
I see, the Bush administration in a good, kind, selfless, altruistic way, and in total disregard for the best interests of the American people launched in a military adventure whose main beneficiaries would be the Iraqi people. The American soldiers in Iraq are being killed and maimed in an effort towards being good global citizens. And the fact that Iraq is swimming in a sea of oil never, ever entered the White House’s calculations.
Maybe the Bush administration should have stated all these things clearly fromt he very beginning, so the American people could have made an informed decision one way or another, and determine whether they wanted to die to save Iraqis from Hussein.
lessen Iran’s goal of total Islamic fundementalist rule in that region.
When has Iran stated that as being their goal? Plus, you do realise Iran is mainly Shi’a while most Islamic countries are chiefly Sunni, don’t you?
December 7th, 2006 at 5:07 pmThe President says that he’s been saying that “it’s bad in Iraq.”
I have to ask where and when did he say that? He said, only a short time ago, that we were winning, “absolutely,” the war in Iraq. How can that POSSIBLY be BAD?
But in the face of his own generals telling him things are getting worse there, in the face of the Iraq Study Commission telling him that things are “grave” there, in the face of escalating sectarian violencethere, in the face of mounting US and Coalition casualties there, in the face of mounting coststhere, in the face of mounting numbers of injured GIs there, in the face of a war that has now lasted longer that WWII, all he can do is make a JOKE about it?
“Mission Accomplished?” Nope. “We will be welcomed as liberators?” Didn’t happen. “We know, for a fact, that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” Not found and no evidence OF them found. “We will be out of there in a year.” (Cheney) Didn’t happen.
It doesn’t take a liberal OR a conservative to see that this war isn’t going according to plan.
All it takes is a good, hard LOOK.
If the MISSION HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED, our troops would not still be there in anywhere near the numbers that they are, would NOT be getting shot at, blown up and attacked as much as they are, if at all!
But they ARE.
That’s not liberal, conservative or anything else but FACTUAL.
The war is NOT going well and the course of it HAS to be changed. If it isn’t, then we will be there for decades. And we still will run the risk of not winning.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:13 pmSpudgeBoy
You’re right, things are not simple like the simple minded try to make them. I prefer, therefore, to exhalt our more complex (and dare I say “liberal”) views. “Liberal” will allow much more diversity in thought and action than the neocons ever will. I embrace the liberal label because I abhor the fact that the neocons have demonized it and I like the squirming when they “accuse” me of being liberal and I respond “I’ve been trying, thank you for noticing”.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:18 pmIf democracy is the only thing that will solve Islamic Fundamentalism, how is that democracy working out in Saudi Arabia, home to the Islamic Fundamentalists at war with the US?
December 7th, 2006 at 5:23 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC),
But, don’t get me wrong I see absolutely nothing wrong with being liberal or being a liberal. Just as I don’t see that there is anything wrong with being a conservative or being conservative. I think the country needs balance. That is what makes America American. We are supposed to be a melting pot. We are more like chunky stew right now.
The issue is that right now, we have NeoCons in office. They are neither conservative nor are they Christians. They are a whole different type of fu*ked up. The problem is that they have convinced people that they are republicans, even thought they have proven beyond a doubt that they are not.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:40 pm#110
“This is a strawman argument since nobody has downplayed the dangers of radical Islam -which are no different from the dangers fundamentalist Christians posed to a secular, democratic form of government.”
Yeah that’s all they do is talk about it, and they fail miserably to address it in and effective way which is trying to get at the root cause of it. The cause is a lack of democratic rule in countries like Iran. If you are unwilling to promote democracy in that region, then this Islamic fundementalist problem is only going to get worse. You also forget one small detail, Iran is controlled RIGHT NOW by Islamic fundamentalists. You are psychotic to compare the realities of what the real danger in the world are by comparing a VERY FEW Christian wackos to those Islamic fundementalists who reign supreme politically in Iran and other countries in the Middle East. Just to prempt you don’t try and say the Bush is one of those Christian wackos, because you know he isn’t wanting to turn this country, i.e. the U.S., into a Christian fundementalist state.
“Can you defend Pres Bush’s policies without resorting to a strawman?”
Can you offer some solutions to the problem instead of ignoring it?
December 7th, 2006 at 5:43 pm#115
All those reasons you cited we clearly expressed before the invasion began.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:46 pmHere is one other reason I will NEVER vote for you yanks.Putting out swill like this.I suppose you all believe this crap too?Tha`s right jump on that bandwagon of misguided minstrels.You`re time is coming.
Hence,my name.Good day.
Let’s Ditch Dixie
The case for Northern secession.
By Mark Strauss
Posted Wednesday, March 14, 2001, at 3:00 AM ET
Call it the rebel yell heard ’round the world. Last year, under the watchful eyes of God and the rheumy stare of the last surviving, 93-year-old Confederate war widow, some 2,500 sons and daughters of Dixie gathered in Montgomery, Ala., to issue a Declaration of Southern Cultural Independence from a nation “violent and profane, coarse and rude, cynical and deviant.”
The rally was staged by the League of the South, an organization that fondly remembers the Confederacy as a golden age (with the awkward exception of slavery) and that seeks to liberate the Southern people from the yoke of “a tyrannous central government” unrestrained by the Constitution. Most people dismiss League members as either harmless eccentrics or closet white supremacists (they’re probably a little of both), but their views resonate in circles well beyond the good ol’ boys who don Confederate Gray on weekends to re-enact the Battle of Antietam and pretend-kill some Yankees. You hear echoes of Southern nationalism whenever Mississippi invokes “states’ rights” to justify flying the Confederate flag over their capitols; or when the GOP’s honorary Dixie chick Gale Norton mourns the defeat of the South saying that “we lost too much”; or when John Ashcroft praises Southern Partisan magazine for helping “set the record straight” on the War Between the States.
This re-emergence of Confederate pride is merely the symptom of a much deeper problem: The North and South can no longer claim to be one nation. If you want proof, just look at the electoral map from the last presidential election. Or consider that, although Texas Gov. George W. Bush lost the U.S. popular vote by 500,000, he won the old Confederacy by a resounding 3.1 million votes. Meanwhile, the cultural gap that pits NASCAR fans against PBS viewers continues to widen. Ted Turner all but confirmed the balkanization of America when he established a cable network exclusively for the citizens of Dixie, serving up finger-lickin’ TV fare that includes Andy Griffith reruns, the best of World Championship Wrestling, CNN South, and slapstick movies such as Dumb and Dumber (which, according to the president of “Turner South,” gets unusually high ratings regionally).
The United States doesn’t have to refight the Civil War to set matters right. Rather, North and South should simply follow the example of the Czech Republic and Slovakia: Shake hands, says it’s been real, and go their separate ways. And if the South isn’t inclined to leave anytime soon, then we should show them the door by seceding unilaterally. Because for all the hue and cry of the South being a conquered people, it is the North that increasingly finds itself under the dominion of the Confederacy. The White House has been occupied by a Southerner for 17 of the last 37 years. And the Confederacy’s foot-in-the-door of the Oval Office will become even more pronounced in the next century: The latest census allowed Dixie to pick up six additional Electoral College votes (thanks, in part, to the migration of warmth-seeking Northerners in numbers sufficient to swell the population of the South, yet insufficient to shift its political landscape). Had Al Gore won the same states in 1972 as he did in 2000, he would have trumped Bush with an electoral vote margin of 278 to 260. In 1984, he still would have won by 271 to 267. But in 2000, even with Electoral College juggernauts such as New York, Pennsylvania, and California in his corner, Gore couldn’t win the White House without the support of the old Confederacy.
As the electoral center of gravity has shifted in the United States, so too have the orientations of the two major political parties. The Democrats lost their historic claim to the “Solid South” when the party fractured over the New Deal and the civil rights movement. With Dixie up for grabs, the GOP went carpetbagging for electoral votes—Barry Goldwater paved the way when he won the loyalty of Southern delegates at the 1964 Republican convention through his championship of states’ rights and his opposition to the civil rights bill. Every victorious Republican candidate since then has dished out exactly what Southern voters want to hear: Nixon attacked busing and racial quotas; Reagan embraced the Christian Right while his attorney general, Ed Meese, charged that the 1965 Voting Rights Act discriminated against the South; and Massachusetts-born George Bush Sr. surrounded himself with country and western stars and added a Willie Horton plank to his platform. Since Republicans won the House in 1994, Southerners have dominated the congressional leadership. Today, Republicans maintain their bare voting majority in the evenly split Senate by virtue of the fact that there are four more Republicans from Dixie than Democrats.
The Dixification of the “Party of Lincoln” would be tolerable if the North had a political party of its own. But increasingly it doesn’t; hence the rise of Ralph Nader, who expressed the pent-up frustration among liberals and populists who no longer feel comfortable in a Democratic Party that speaks with a down-home drawl. In all the presidential elections between 1980 and 1992, the Democrats succeeded in winning only one Confederate state. Clinton’s path to victory was the trashing of Sister Soulja as he and other Southern Democrats weaned their party away from Northern special interests (aka “the party base”) such as environmentalists, organized labor, African-Americans, consumer advocates, Latinos, and gays. Gore lost the election (and even his home state, which he loyally represented for 16 years) because he went off message and dared to espouse progressive, populist themes on government, gun control, and the environment. Shut out of all branches of government, some party leaders are once again pushing a Southern strategy to retake the White House and Congress, all but guaranteeing that the Democratic Party will continue whistling Dixie.
Economically and socially, secession will be painless for the North. The South is a gangrenous limb that should have been lopped off decades ago. More people live below the poverty line in the old Confederacy than in the Northeast and Midwest combined. You are three times more likely to be murdered in parts of Dixie than anywhere in New England, despite a feverish devotion to “law-and-order” that has made eight Southern states home to 90 percent of all recent U.S. executions. The South has the highest infant-mortality rate and the highest incidences of sexually transmitted diseases, while it lags behind the rest of the country in terms of test scores and opportunities for women. The Confederate states rail against the tyranny of big government, yet they are the largest recipients of federal tax dollars. They steal business away from the North the same way that developing countries worldwide have always attracted foreign direct investment: through low wages and anti-union laws. The flow of guns into America’s Northern cities stems largely from Southern states. The tobacco grown by ol’ Dixie kills nearly a half-million Americans each year.
Imagine then, for just a moment, the North as its own nation. Trent Lott and Dick Armey would be foreigners. We would no longer be subjected to round-the-clock TV commercials for Dale Earnhardt commemorative plates. If you were to expel all Southerners from Congress (both parties, mind you) the new liberal majority would be able to pass tougher gun laws and legislation barring discrimination against gays and lesbians immediately. With the South banished from the Union, we could begin to correct the most objectionable aspects of Southern behavior with the same tools we use to engage countries such as China: by making trade and continued foreign aid contingent upon sincere efforts to clean up the environment and improve human rights. We could implement “Plan South Carolina” to convince tobacco growers to develop alternative crops. Northern observers could ensure democracy in Florida polling places. Peace Corps volunteers could teach the necessary skills that would allow Southerners to pull themselves out of poverty and illiteracy while simultaneously promoting a better understanding of American values.
In fact, the only obvious downside is that the South would almost certainly insist on keeping the 3,150 nuclear warheads that are scattered throughout Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, and Virginia. Maybe we could strike a deal to get those nukes back, the same way Russia did with Ukraine after the Soviet Union broke up. If not, then perhaps national missile defense might not be such a bad idea after all.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:49 pmYeah that’s all they do is talk about it, and they fail miserably to address it in and effective way which is trying to get at the root cause of it.
Comment by Tracy — December 7, 2006 @ 5:43 pm
Such a long, inane post just to say: “I agree, nobody has downplayed the risks of Islamic fundamentalism. I take back my strawman”.
Plus, nothing in what you say takes anything away from my point that all forms of religious fundamentalism are a danger to a democratic, secular society.
Can you offer some solutions to the problem instead of ignoring it?
Who is ignoring the problem of Islamic fundamentalism?
I guess this means you cannot debate without trying to change the subject or resorting to strawman arguments.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:56 pm#149
“And a difference between LBJ and the Decider, LBJ actually CARED and cried about the troops he was losing, that’s why he wouldn’t run again.”
BS! If he actually cared he wouldn’t have tried to constrain the U.S. military from fighting and effective campaign and making it a “politically correct” war, i.e. making it last for 10 years.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:57 pmWow, cut-and-paste and in an instant your rapier-like rhetoric is unleashed. I feel humble before it.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:58 pmAll those reasons you cited we clearly expressed before the invasion began.
Comment by Tracy — December 7, 2006 @ 5:46 pm
The main goal of the invasion was always, invariably to rid Hussein of those WMD that posed a threat to Iraq’s neighbors and to the world.
All the other reasons were secondary. Plus, as I said -if the real reason was to make Iraq a democratic nation, Pres Bush should have said so from the very beginning and do away with the WMD rationale.
Except, of course, invading a country in order to exert regime change is illegal. Oh, the predicament.
December 7th, 2006 at 6:02 pm#196 Tracy
BS! If he actually cared he wouldn’t have tried to constrain the U.S. military from fighting and effective campaign and making it a “politically correct†war, i.e. making it last for 10 years.
Two million killed and you’re calling it a “politically correct” war? Yeah, we should have taken off the kid gloves.
December 7th, 2006 at 6:08 pm#152
I would rather have the liberals in control of Iran. A liberal in Iran, however, would be considered conservative in the West and a hardline conservative in Iran is what we have now, i.e. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
December 7th, 2006 at 6:09 pmPaul Wolfowitz: the WMD were the only reason we could come up with we could agree on.
In other words, we’re invading Iraq – someone figure out what we tell everyone.
Hey invade countries for democracy? OK here’s a short list:
Myanmar
December 7th, 2006 at 6:11 pmUzbekistan
China – maybe I should stop there
#154
Not to well but since the people in Iraq have been living under totalitarian rule for hundreds of years….please cut them some slack. How long did it take Europe to become democratic as it exists today?
December 7th, 2006 at 6:11 pmMossadegh looks pretty good these days, eh?
December 7th, 2006 at 6:12 pm“Can you offer some solutions to the problem instead of ignoring it? ”
Yeah, lets pull out of Iraq so that we can focus on preventing another terrorist attack on the US.
December 7th, 2006 at 6:13 pm[...] Watch the video. [...]
December 7th, 2006 at 6:13 pm#161
“Well, that is where your exploitable ignorance shows, since Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda, but the invasion gave them an opening.”
AGAIN…if…you…are…an…Islamic…fundementalist…you…don’t…have…to… actually…be…a…member…of…Al Qaeda. BTW Muqtada al-Sadr is a influential Islamic extremist in Iraq and he was there when Saddam was in power.
December 7th, 2006 at 6:19 pm#165
Right and the solution isn’t going to be easy OR quick.
December 7th, 2006 at 6:20 pm“How long did it take Europe to become democratic as it exists today? ”
I guess you would argue that it only took so long because they didn’t have a bunch of foreigners come into their countries and force it on them at gunpoint.
That help?
December 7th, 2006 at 6:20 pm“Muqtada al-Sadr is a influential Islamic extremist in Iraq and he was there when Saddam was in power. ”
And would you say he is more or less influential after we invaded?
December 7th, 2006 at 6:23 pm#166
“I don’t understand how or why you support the man and his polices when it’s clear that they are both failing.”
I am not in support of his present Iraq policies. I have been waiting and waiting for a change in policy since, oh about 2005. What I do support however, is not pulling out of Iraq and leaving it for the Islamic fundementalists like the Iranians to devour which is what many on the left favor and this idea that we can redeploy to adjacent countries and that would sufice is a joke.
December 7th, 2006 at 6:25 pmHow long did it take Europe to become democratic as it exists today?
Comment by Tracy — December 7, 2006 @ 6:11 pm
How many times was Europe invaded and by whom, that claimed to be helping Europeans learn, understand, and implement democracy?
Or was democracy a home-grown political, philosophical movement in Europe?
December 7th, 2006 at 6:25 pm#194 – Goodday to you too sir, Sounds suspiciously like Fez on that 70’s show. Might be that Mark is Leo’s great grandson.
December 7th, 2006 at 6:34 pm#168
“Did you mean Iraq instead of Iran?”
BOTH.
“If so, invading a country and toppling its leader, no matter how bad he is, is NOT the way to do promote democracy.”
I don’t think in that part of the world that there was any other way to start this political revolution. However we did poor job in dealing with the aftermath, I totally agree.
December 7th, 2006 at 6:44 pmBush lied and people died.
KFC no longer uses trans-fats
–but their chicken’s still fried.
December 7th, 2006 at 6:45 pmNo, Mr. Decider. Those are the questions you have to answer, not the questions you ask us.
December 7th, 2006 at 6:47 pm“I don’t think in that part of the world that there was any other way to start this political revolution.”
Really? I don’t think there could have been a worse way to go about it.
Why is it that Republicans (or whatever you are) are all about confronting the root causes of things if it involves getting to kill a bunch of foreigners, but are so adamantly against attacking the root causes of things like crime in our own country by way of fighting poverty?
December 7th, 2006 at 6:56 pm#172
“Islamic fundamentalism is all over the world. It is NOT synonymous with terrorism.”
Those Islamic fundamentalists that are engaged in Jihad absolutely have made it so. Do try to deflect here.
“But, what WAS in Afghanistan was the mastermind of the 9/11 attack, his leaders, and his protectors.”
And it WASN’T bin Laden. In case you missed it Khalid Sheikh Mohammed planned and masterminded that 9/11 attacks and he currently sits in a jail.
“You’re not contradicting them, are you?”
I was preempting you encase you were about to suggest that this whole invasion was only about oil. I have said many times in this blog that security of those Iraqi oil field was a reason.
“And, you can’t possibly be serious that our invasion of Iraq is doing anything to hurt Iran.”
No but it is preventing them from controlling Iraq.
“Saddam Hussein did a hell of a lot more to keep Iran from taking over the region than we ever did.”
You don’t think that Iran was biding it’s time by letting the sanctions pound Iraq into collapsing economically and politically?
“And how do you feel about the Islamic fundamentalists in the friendly nations of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?”
They are the main ones including the ones in Iran, feeding that entire movement. However, considering Sadamm had pretty good secular control over radical elements in Iraq like al Sadar, Iraq was an opportunity to establish democracy in a rather non-radical country….comparitively speaking.
“Shall we be invading them soon?”
How do you think that those in Jordan, Egypt or even Turkey would feel about U.S. troops showing up in Mecca?
December 7th, 2006 at 7:00 pm#174
Name calling?
December 7th, 2006 at 7:03 pmThen stop propping up this ass wipe. You have stated in this thread alone that we need to leave Iraq and that Bush didn’t plan for after we toppled Saddam, which took all of 20 minutes. So, you are saying that Bush didn’t plan for what was the real problem, you know the occupation and that we shouldn’t be there anymore.
Why do you find it so hard to fault Bush for his mistakes?
Because as soon as you do call him on his failures, you will have to admit that we were and are right.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:05 pm#178
“While we’re at it, Tracy, since you just hate to hear anyone say our little adventure in Iraq has something to do with oil”
I don’t hate it….I agree with it. You haven’t been posting here long have you?
December 7th, 2006 at 7:12 pm#180
Wrong. Al Qaeda is in Pakistan. There never was an al Qaeda in Iraq until December 4, 2004 when Zarqawi pledge allegiance to Osama. Stupid.”
How many times do I have to say this? I will go even slower just for you SpungeBOY. You……don’t……have…….to……be…..a…..member…..of…..al Qaeda……to……be…..an……Islamic……fundementalist.
“According to your masters, we invaded Iraq because they lied and said Saddam did have WMDs.”
The 9/11 panel found no evidence of your baseless accusations that Bush lied. You “feelings” here are irrelevant.
“We DID NOT go to Iraq to spread democracy , as that is against international law.”
International law doesn’t even address how to spread or promote democracy.
“So, we are trying to build democracy in Iraq to stop Iran’s democracy?”
Iran does NOT have a democracy. If you think they do then you are off the reservation. We are trying to build a democracy in Iran to stop Iran’s totalitarian rule over the entire region.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:21 pm#181
What ever you say SpungeBOY.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:22 pm#182
Oh, you are chimpanzees . How did you get a hold of a computer? SpungeBOY you are now on my offical entertainers list.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:24 pm#183
I am your master SpungeBOY!
December 7th, 2006 at 7:25 pm#184
The environment. How about you?
December 7th, 2006 at 7:26 pm#185
I am so glad you are not in a leadership position SpungeBOY.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:27 pmThe torturer-in-chief needs to have a direct experience with how bad it gets when he violates every warcrime law and anti-torture law on the books.
Nuremberg Bush needs to know–personally. An up-close chat with a rope.
Is that enough?
No, it will never be enough. But justice rarely is.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:30 pm#187
“And this is where your small thinking shows: AlQaeda and Islamic fundamentalism are not synonymous.”
The leaders of al Qaeda are Islamic fundamentalists…are they not?
“And the fact that Iraq is swimming in a sea of oil never, ever entered the White House’s calculations.”
Yes it did and I have acknowledged it for a LONG time in this blog.
“When has Iran stated that as being their goal?
Why do you think that they would have to state it?
“Plus, you do realise Iran is mainly Shi’a while most Islamic countries are chiefly Sunni, don’t you?”
Wonder if that is why they are trying to get nukes…..hmmmm.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:35 pm#190
Not well at all. It’s going to take decades maybe longer, but definately longer than most people who already enjoy it are willing to accept.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:37 pmTracy: “The invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam was an attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East (not oil so don’t even try it)….the ONLY thing that will solve the problem of Islamic fundementalism BTW, and lessen Iran’s goal of total Islamic fundementalist rule in that region.”
Poor Tracy. She’s trying so hard to school us on this terrorism thing that she’s failed to notice that Bush’s illegal war has had the effect of creating a massive Shiite Arc running from one end of the middle east to the other. The real winner has been Iran. Tracy, I think you need to “bone up” on this stuff before you presume to tell anyone around here about the threat of terrorism.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:44 pm#195
“Such a long, inane post just to say: “I agree, nobody has downplayed the risks of Islamic fundamentalism. I take back my strawmanâ€.”
I didn’t take anything back. Again talking about it and doing something about it is totally different.
“Plus, nothing in what you say takes anything away from my point that all forms of religious fundamentalism are a danger to a democratic, secular society.”
Your comparision wasn’t even close.
“Who is ignoring the problem of Islamic fundamentalism?”
Again, those who are just talking about it. Explain how liberals are actually dealing with Islamic fundamentalism and what they intend to do to stop it’s spreading?
December 7th, 2006 at 7:45 pmNot about oil, Tracy? Oops, I think your pants might be ablaze….
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/31/bush_gives_new_reason_for_iraq_war/
December 7th, 2006 at 7:48 pmHere’s a thought, Tracy. For a fraction of what we spend in Iraq, we could put advanced nuclear and chemical screening devices in every American port, anti-missle technology on every airliner, have armed air marshals on all flights, beef up the security around chemical and nuclear plants, beef up our quick-strike special forces, hire thousands of translators and check every container in every port in the country. Personally, I think any of these things would be money better spent fighting terrorism than presiding over a civil war in Iraq.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:51 pmThe leaders of al Qaeda are Islamic fundamentalists…are they not?
Comment by Tracy — December 7, 2006 @ 7:35 pm
A little lesson in logic: Do all Islamic fundamentalists belong to AlQaeda?
Of course not. It follows the two are not synonymous.
Yes it did and I have acknowledged it for a LONG time in this blog.
Then explain your statement: “The invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam was an attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East (not oil so don’t even try it)”
Why do you think that they would have to state it?
I see, you don’t know and you are speculating. Of course, there is always the chance you have an “in” with the Iranian government and that’s why you don’t think they need to state it publicly.
Wonder if that is why they are trying to get nukes…..hmmmm.
So you didn’t realise Iran could not export their brand of fundamentalism because they are the smaller denomination, and whose theological foundation is rejected by the overwhelming Sunni majority? Now that’s funny.
Also, Iran is not “getting nukes” or trying. They are building a nuclear reactor to produce energy. There is no way of knowing for sure whether or not they would eventually try to build a nuclear bomb. Again, unless you have a direct line with the Mullahs in Iran.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:52 pmYou know like calling me SpungeBoy. Pretty original of you.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:52 pm#198
“The main goal of the invasion was always, invariably to rid Hussein of those WMD that posed a threat to Iraq’s neighbors and to the world.
All the other reasons were secondary.”
Agreed.
“Plus, as I said -if the real reason was to make Iraq a democratic nation, Pres Bush should have said so from the very beginning and do away with the WMD rationale.”
Many of the Americans in this country wouldn’t have seen the fighting of a war in the name of democracy in an Islamic country as something worth doing. Pushing democracy in the Middle East is a means to an end, i.e. stopping the spead of Islamic fundamentalism.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:52 pmTell……..that……..to……….your………masters………dumb…………shEt
December 7th, 2006 at 7:55 pm#199
A quick decisive war by using overwhelming force reduces the number of casualties as any military expert would tell you. Making Vietnam a politically correct war is exactly why so many more were killed than could have been.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:55 pm#208
I asked you.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:56 pmThe 9/11 comission is a fu*king joke.
Actually it cleary states that regime change is not a legal reason to start a war.
Iran IS a democracy. It doesn’t matter how many times you say it isn’t. It is. Period. You are wrong.
December 7th, 2006 at 7:59 pmAre you highlighting BOY as an insult. Since that has no meaning. I will start calling you TraCy. C, which stands for “You are a dumb fu*k”
December 7th, 2006 at 8:00 pmOh but I am. Ha. Too bad for you.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:02 pm#211
“How many times was Europe invaded and by whom, that claimed to be helping Europeans learn, understand, and implement democracy?”
They invaded each other alot and yes democracy was a self taught idea, however they religious leaders, i.e. the Vatican for example didn’t have near the political or social pull that the Islamic extremists are having today.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:02 pm#216
“Really? I don’t think there could have been a worse way to go about it.”
Then you don’t really understand their culture.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:04 pm[...] “Bush responded curtly, “It’s bad in Iraq. That help?†and then chuckled.” I’m not sure denial is even of the same order of magnitude as what’s going on here … doesn’t denial denote at least the existence in thought of the thing being denied? The facility with which the espoused reality changes and is warped seems to indicate that the espoused reality is not firmly held, that what is being espoused is understood as illusion. Nothing the President says matters because the President believes it does not matter what he says. Could that mean not only that it is a farce, but that he knows it is a farce? [...]
December 7th, 2006 at 8:05 pmThe computers came the one of the Internets tubes. TraCy
December 7th, 2006 at 8:06 pmMany of the Americans in this country wouldn’t have seen the fighting of a war in the name of democracy in an Islamic country as something worth doing.
Comment by Tracy — December 7, 2006 @ 7:52 pm
Are you saying it was necessary to conceal the actual reasons for the invasion?
Are you saying you are ok with Pres Bush misleading the public in order to get his way?
Pushing democracy in the Middle East is a means to an end, i.e. stopping the spead of Islamic fundamentalism.
You just made up another rationale for the invasion: Stoping the spread of Islamic fundamentalism was not in the list of reasons prior to the military action against Iraq.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:06 pmAre you fu*king high? You ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition? Now I know you are off your god damn rocker.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:07 pmTraCy,
Next time you and your masters decide to drag the country into a religious war, why don’t you do as Christ said and tell the truth. Then we will see how much support you get. You are a Cristofascist. You are just as scary as the Islamofascists. Take your 2000 year old fairy tale and shove it up your ass.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:09 pmThey invaded each other alot and yes democracy was a self taught idea,
Comment by Tracy — December 7, 2006 @ 8:02 pm
That is not what I asked at all. My question was: “How many times was Europe invaded and by whom, that claimed to be helping Europeans learn, understand, and implement democracy?”
So, what extra-European nation(s) invaded Europe claiming to help spread democracy?
however they religious leaders, i.e. the Vatican for example didn’t have near the political or social pull that the Islamic extremists are having today.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Ever heard of Galileo? The Holy Inquisition? The prosecution of Jews, pagans, and other non-Christians? Ever heard of forced mass conversions? The Crusades?
“didn’t have near the political or social pull”… wow…
December 7th, 2006 at 8:10 pm#219
Considering you were never on board with promoting democracy in the Middle East you can shove your comment about you being right, boy.
“Why do you find it so hard to fault Bush for his mistakes?”
I don’t find it hard at all for faulting him for not planning post invasion, and it doesn’t mean that I was against the invasion either.
“So, you are saying that Bush didn’t plan for what was the real problem, you know the occupation and that we shouldn’t be there anymore.”
I said that we should be there to prevent Iran from moving in. Now how to get out of the way of the civil war is another question and no I don’t think that re-deploying to Kuwait is going to prevent Iranian influence.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:14 pm#233
Great plan to stop the spead of radical Islam.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:18 pmOkay girl,
No, I am not for pushing our form of government on anybody. Why, because not everybody wants or needs to be democracies. George W Bush has borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars from Communist China. Why are you okay with that. How come you aren’t pushing for attacking China?
Hard for you to admit that he has made mistakes if you don’t use the word mistake.
And we all know that you were and still are 100% behind this invasion, no matter how wrong and illegal it is and was.
You are a Bush apologist. 20 years from now you will still be crowing about what a great president George W Bush was and everybody will be talking about you behind your back or right to your face, but you won’t notice, because you are a bootlicking NeoCon whacko.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:25 pmAll the fundies should just colonize the moon, and then they can stop worrying about radical islam taking over the earth.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:26 pmWe need to stop radical religion. Islam, Christianity and Jews. All of the crrazy whackos need to be stopped. The minute that happens, war will become a thing of the past.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:28 pmStop the spread of
December 7th, 2006 at 8:30 pmfacsismcommunismradical islam.#234
“A little lesson in logic: Do all Islamic fundamentalists belong to AlQaeda?
Of course not. It follows the two are not synonymous.”
For something to be synonymous it doesn’t have to be all encompassing.
“Then explain your statement: “The invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam was an attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East (not oil so don’t even try it)—
I was trying to preempt you from stating that the main reason was oil. Again you have been posting here for awhile and you know I have acknowledged the oil factor in this invasion.
“Of course, there is always the chance you have an “in†with the Iranian government and that’s why you don’t think they need to state it publicly.”
Just like there is a chance you have an “in” with bin Laden but won’t do your country a service and let us know where he is hiding.
“So you didn’t realise Iran could not export their brand of fundamentalism because they are the smaller denomination, and whose theological foundation is rejected by the overwhelming Sunni majority?”
Uh, yes I did that’s why I said they are trying to get nukes in order to dominate the region by force. Keep up here.
“Also, Iran is not “getting nukes†or trying. They are building a nuclear reactor to produce energy”
Now that’s funny! Too bad the UN Security Council, the EU, and the U.S. goverment both Democrats and Republicans don’t share your same oblivious views.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:32 pmAny radical form of religion or political orientation needs to be stopped. The radicals on the left are just as whacked out too.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:33 pm#240
“Iran IS a democracy. It doesn’t matter how many times you say it isn’t. It is. Period. You are wrong. ”
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 7th, 2006 at 8:36 pmThen you don’t really understand their culture.
Comment by Tracy — December 7, 2006 @ 8:04 pm
And you do?
Clearly you don’t either or you wouldn’t consider for a second that Middle Eastern people only understand force. Nobody in his right mind would.
Not to mention it is illogical to hold it true, and still believe that such a culture can embrace democracy -the very antithesis of the rule by force and violence.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:37 pm#241
If you wouldn’t have started with the name calling boy, I wouldn’t have so little regard for your comments.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:37 pm#242
McDonalds?
December 7th, 2006 at 8:38 pmOnce again, you are full of shEt.
CBS News
September 14, 2006
IAEA: Iran Nuclear Report ‘Outrageous’
Sorry, the UN, the IAEA and the world do not agree with the republican house report on Irans nuclear capapbilities.
Go lie someplace else you lying liar.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:39 pm#246
That still doesn’t explain how you got a hold of one.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:39 pmThen why do you keep answering every single one of them. Not one has gone by that you haven’t addressed.
LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 7th, 2006 at 8:40 pm#255
I finally agree with you about something.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:41 pmI don’t particulary care for McDonalds. That is more of a fatty republican fast food place.
Oh, that was supposed to be a swipe. Oh I get it. You are so clever for a dumb ass.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:42 pmGirl, you so crazy. I told you it flew through the tubes right out your fat ass.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:43 pm#247
“Are you saying it was necessary to conceal the actual reasons for the invasion?”
All of the reasons were stated, however if the MAIN reaon put forth was to spread democracy….then no, it wouldn’t have convinced the American people to remove Saddam.
“Are you saying you are ok with Pres Bush misleading the public in order to get his way?”
I am saying that most of the the American people today don’t have the will to fight for other people’s freedom.
“You just made up another rationale for the invasion: Stoping the spread of Islamic fundamentalism was not in the list of reasons prior to the military action against Iraq.”
If you can’t put 2 and 2 together then God help you.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:47 pmSorry, as much as I would like for us to agree, we don’t and I will tell you why. Because George W Bush is a radical Christian.
So, we only agree if you think George W Bush needs to go, because he is pushing a radical Christian agenda.
If you don’t then we do not agree.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:47 pm“Many of the Americans in this country wouldn’t have seen the fighting of a war in the name of democracy in an Islamic country as something worth doing. Pushing democracy in the Middle East is a means to an end, i.e. stopping the spead of Islamic fundamentalism. “
oh, Tracy… so god damn telling. Quit beating around the bush already. We’re
December 7th, 2006 at 8:48 pmnot going to fight your war. You can do that all by your lonesome.
Why has this thread degraded to a slapping contest?
December 7th, 2006 at 8:48 pmIsn’t it supposed to be about W’s insensitivity and being of “small mind” as A. A. Milne would say?
#248
Explain how the the Vatican didn’t have a hand in promoting the Spanish Inquisition?
December 7th, 2006 at 8:51 pm#249
Spungeboy, little man, you aren’t worth talking to anymore.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:52 pmMy post #272,
December 7th, 2006 at 9:01 pmWould “pissing contest” have made it through the decency filter?
#250
“How many times was Europe invaded and by whom, that claimed to be helping Europeans learn, understand, and implement democracy?”
None. Back in that time there weren’t any real influential democracies to really speak of.
“You have no idea what you are talking about. Ever heard of Galileo? The Holy Inquisition? The prosecution of Jews, pagans, and other non-Christians? Ever heard of forced mass conversions? The Crusades?”
Not when when Europe was trying to form their modern democracies.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:01 pmI didn’t take anything back. Again talking about it and doing something about it is totally different.
Comment by Tracy — December 7, 2006 @ 7:45 pm
Gotta love the way you move the goal posts. First I downplay the dangers of radical Islam, and now I have to do something about it.
Again, those who are just talking about it. Explain how liberals are actually dealing with Islamic fundamentalism and what they intend to do to stop it’s spreading?
Explain how the invasion of Iraq, that posed no threat to the US and had no radical Islamic fundamentalist government helps towards stopping its spread?
For something to be synonymous it doesn’t have to be all encompassing.
Comment by Tracy — December 7, 2006 @ 8:32 pm
Yes, it has. Both terms need to be interchageable. That’s what synonyms are.
I was trying to preempt you from stating that the main reason was oil.
I wouldn’t say the main reason, but definitely an important one, and one of many. Let’s drop this one and move on, then.
Just like there is a chance you have an “in†with bin Laden but won’t do your country a service and let us know where he is hiding.
Ok, then you were speculating, and have no basis for your contention that Iran is trying to spread their version of Islamic fundamentalism.
that’s why I said they are trying to get nukes in order to dominate the region by force. Keep up here.
You didn’t say it. Your logical leaps make sense only to you.
Now that’s funny! Too bad the UN Security Council, the EU, and the U.S. goverment both Democrats and Republicans don’t share your same oblivious views.
Maybe if you followed the news more closely you wouldn’t accuse others of having “oblivious views”.
Nobody -except for the Bush administration- is talking about Iran’s nuclear program about a de facto quest for nuclear weapons. There is the suspicion, wholly warranted, that Iran might use the knowledge gained from its current program to eventually build a bomb. Eventually. Maybe.
To forestall that ambition, the UN and the IAEA are looking for assurances that Iran won’t use the knowledge towards that end. That’s what the current problem is about. At any rate, Iran currently does not have the capacity to build a nuclear bomb.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:03 pmIf you can’t put 2 and 2 together then God help you.
Comment by Tracy — December 7, 2006 @ 8:47 pm
Again, your logical leaps make sense only to you.
If the Bush administration had this in mind, they certainly didn’t mention it.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:05 pm#253
Girl? You know that I am not a girl.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:08 pmNot when when Europe was trying to form their modern democracies.
Comment by Tracy — December 7, 2006 @ 9:01 pm
First, your post mentioned no time frame.
Second, this is exactly why I said fundamentalism, whether Islamic, Jewish, or Christian, is a threat to secular, representative democracies.
Such a form of government cannot exist as long as government is mixed with religion -the very goal of fundamentalists everywhere.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:11 pm#260
“Clearly you don’t either or you wouldn’t consider for a second that Middle Eastern people only understand force.”
You have proof otherwise? If so then tell me why most of the governments in the Middle East are totalitarian regimes?
“Not to mention it is illogical to hold it true, and still believe that such a culture can embrace democracy -the very antithesis of the rule by force and violence.”
That the way it was during those early Eurpoean eras you mentioned in which the religious leaders controlled the countries. It’s going to take time. The Muslims are few years behind the Europeans as far democracy goes. I hope it doesn’t take that long.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:13 pmOkay, I’ll join the fray. Finland, one of the purest democracies in modern Europe was settled by the Mongol hordes that overran Europe from Mongolia. Ever hear of Genghis Khan? That is the most extreme case as Finland has been a continuous democracy since well before the Magna Charta was signed.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:17 pm#263
Who cares what an anti-American nuclear watch dog group has to say?
The IAEA can’t currently verify anything by their own admission!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15712210/
December 7th, 2006 at 9:22 pm#272
As Spungeboy
December 7th, 2006 at 9:24 pm#248
Explain how the the Vatican had a hand in promoting the Spanish Inquisition?
December 7th, 2006 at 9:25 pmYou have proof otherwise? If so then tell me why most of the governments in the Middle East are totalitarian regimes?
Comment by Tracy — December 7, 2006 @ 9:13 pm
Wha? Many countries around the world still have totalitarian regimes. I would be very hard-pressed to conclude from that fact that those people only understand through the use of force.
It is a non-sequitur.
That the way it was during those early Eurpoean eras you mentioned in which the religious leaders controlled the countries. It’s going to take time.
Ah, so they don’t understand only by force, do they? Democracy can be introduced by means other than military invasion, can’t it?
The Muslims are few years behind the Europeans as far democracy goes. I hope it doesn’t take that long.
It is not a Muslim characteristic to be undemocratic. Many socio-economic factors have to come together for a society to embrace a representative democracy as a form of government. And don’t expect it to necessarily be European-like, either.
Turkey is a democracy. So are Bangladesh, Algeria, Indonesia, and others. Yes, all these countries have their flaws, but they all have implemented some sort of representative government.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:26 pmBack on topic, W is a crass rube cowboy President who has a fear of equines.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:27 pm#287 – Tracy,
December 7th, 2006 at 9:48 pmHere’s a good place to start. There are many other references on the internet. You must remember that the Muslims who controlled Spain before Isabella and Phillip did not oppress Jews, unlike that pair.
OT, but the shuttle did not go tonight.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:53 pmReality and facing responsibility are mother f@ckers for an active alcoholic like the drunken AWOL coward…too cowardly to go to war, finish his duty in the national guard, admit to ever making a mistake…Dubya is a coward and an idiot who has been the worst thing to ever happen to this great nation…brought to you by the rubber necked Republican majority that stood by and supported the destruction of the constitution and the military…because they are all too cowardly to stand up to the chimp and Karl Rove. History will not be kind to the worthless failed Republican Party.
December 7th, 2006 at 10:42 pmMy browser keeps displaying a nice big black box on the screen, cool.
December 7th, 2006 at 10:45 pm#295 – Spudge_Boy,
December 7th, 2006 at 11:34 pmNo way that Tracy is female – each of his posts are to a dumb blonde as Mortimer Snerd is to Einstein.
And it you desire to wile away the rest of your evening and workday, try this site.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:43 pm#217 Tracy
“Islamic fundamentalism is all over the world. It is NOT synonymous with terrorism.â€
Those Islamic fundamentalists that are engaged in Jihad absolutely have made it so. Do try to deflect here.
Those Christian fundamentalists who bomb Planned Parenthood clinics are engaged in something of a jihad, too. Therefore, all terrorists should be called Christian fundamentalists. Okay.
“And, you can’t possibly be serious that our invasion of Iraq is doing anything to hurt Iran.â€
No but it is preventing them from controlling Iraq.
Check again. Iran is closer to controlling Iraq through the Shiites now than they ever were while Saddam was in power. If the invasion of Iraq was supposed to keep Iran from taking over Iraq (and you’re the first one I’ve ever heard advance that theory) then it’s failing miserably.
And it WASN’T bin Laden. In case you missed it Khalid Sheikh Mohammed planned and masterminded that 9/11 attacks and he currently sits in a jail.
My fault. I used the word “mastermind”. I should have said “ringleader”.
So, I guess that means bin Laden’s off the hook? No wonder Bush doesn’t really care where he is or whether he finds him or not. So, I guess the PDB was all wrong. It wasn’t bin Laden who was determined to attack the U.S. It was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and we got him. Case closed.
So, when we got Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, we were all done fighting back against the people who attacked us on 9/11, right? What was it we invaded Iraq for again? I’m sorry. I keep forgetting which reason we’re on now. Could somebody put all the reasons on a calendar so I can just see what week we’re on and what the reason of the week is?
How do you think that those in Jordan, Egypt or even Turkey would feel about U.S. troops showing up in Mecca?
So, you’re saying we should go all out to stomp out Islamic fundamentalism, but stop short at the borders of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, in spite of those being the breeding grounds for Islamic terrorists all over the Middle East, if not the world. I’m not saying we should attack those countries, but I’m still waiting to hear why you think destroying Iraq is okay and destroying Iran would be okay, but not Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. What’s the difference?
December 8th, 2006 at 12:06 am#220 Tracy
“While we’re at it, Tracy, since you just hate to hear anyone say our little adventure in Iraq has something to do with oilâ€
I don’t hate it….I agree with it. You haven’t been posting here long have you?
You’re the one who said “The invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam was an attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East (not oil so don’t even try it)”. Care to elaborate on that thought?
When was the last time you posted anything here in the past year up until yesterday? I take it you think rather highly of yourself?
December 8th, 2006 at 12:14 am#269 Tracy
I am saying that most of the the American people today don’t have the will to fight for other people’s freedom.
Well, all of the reasons are out on the table now, supposedly, and the American people are none too happy about what Bush has done with our troops. And it’s not as if nobody knew it would turn out this way. Republicans and Democrats, high-ranking military and former cabinet officials, among others, tried to tell Bush how it would play out and he refused to listen. How is it that you’re still not able to see what an idiot he is? Is it pride? Is it a personality disorder? Is it a paycheck? What makes you struggle so hard to come up with these weak rationalizations in support of Bush?
And you’re flat out wrong about the American people. They’ll go to great lengths to fight for other people’s freedom. But, they don’t like seeing their hard-earned money and their children’s and grandchildren’s futures getting poured down a rathole while the elite investor class makes no sacrifices, gets monstrous tax cuts, and uses war as a get-rich-quick scheme. And the American people REALLY don’t like it when it’s their kids and grandkids, husbands and wives, moms and dads whose lives are getting poured down that rathole, and there’s no end in sight.
It’s just too bad you can’t understand that. Maybe you don’t belong here. Maybe this isn’t the country you thought it was.
December 8th, 2006 at 12:35 amAnyone who supports the occupation of Iraq should get their asses over there or shut the f*ck up!
December 8th, 2006 at 1:29 amWow…There have been many, many comments since this thread was started originally…And yet, after so much has been said and written, the fact remains that the “reporter” was a disrespectful rube and was put in his place (and sufficiently chastised) by President Bush. Bush won (yet again) this confrontation with the liberal news media.
December 8th, 2006 at 1:40 amWhy Americans Hate Democrats — A Dialog
Just because it is such a damned good piece of writing, the following is an exerpt from Jane Smiley’s seminal piece in Slate Magazine:
The reason the Democrats have lost five of the last seven presidential elections is simple: A generation ago, the big capitalists, who have no morals, as we know, decided to make use of the religious right in their class war against the middle class and against the regulations that were protecting those whom they considered to be their rightful prey—workers and consumers. The architects of this strategy knew perfectly well that they were exploiting, among other unsavory qualities, a long American habit of virulent racism, but they did it anyway, and we see the outcome now—Cheney is the capitalist arm and Bush is the religious arm. They know no boundaries or rules. They are predatory and resentful, amoral, avaricious, and arrogant. Lots of Americans like and admire them because lots of Americans, even those who don’t share those same qualities, don’t know which end is up. Can the Democrats appeal to such voters? Do they want to? The Republicans have sold their souls for power. Must everyone?
Progressives have only one course of action now: React quickly to every outrage—red state types love to cheat and intimidate, so we have to assume the worst and call them on it every time. We have to give them more to think about than they can handle—to always appeal to reason and common sense, and the law, even when they can’t understand it and don’t respond. They cannot be allowed to keep any secrets. Tens of millions of people didn’t vote—they are watching, too, and have to be shown that we are ready and willing to fight, and that the battle is worth fighting. And in addition, we have to remember that threats to democracy from the right always collapse. Whatever their short-term appeal, they are borne of hubris and hatred, and will destroy their purveyors in the end.
Although it originally appeared shortly after the last election, I think the article is so fundamentally honest and insightful that it bears dissemination until every American has read it. You can read the whole thing here.
http://www.slate.com/id/2109218/
December 8th, 2006 at 1:48 am“Why did it take other people to say it?”
Why did it take another country’s reporter to ask it?
December 8th, 2006 at 3:43 amAnd it’s not as if nobody knew it would turn out this way. Republicans and Democrats, high-ranking military and former cabinet officials, among others, tried to tell Bush how it would play out and he refused to listen.
Comment by chimpeach — December 8, 2006 @ 12:35 am
In 1990 Dick Cheney knew how it would turn out, too, if G.H.W. Bush had tried to force regime change in Gulf War I. It’s exactly what we are seeing today.
December 8th, 2006 at 9:13 amComment by Exley — December 8, 2006 @ 1:40 am
If Bush won, it was only by being a smartass.
Bet you’re real proud.
December 8th, 2006 at 9:16 amDid this Q&A actually improve anything regarding the war?
Or was it more of a “We gotcha again Mr. President, great sound bite“.
December 8th, 2006 at 9:33 ambush is a lying piece of shit, i sincerely hope he rots in hell with rhummy, condi, porky pig rove and the other traitors to america and iraq.
December 8th, 2006 at 9:38 amgod bless america, my ass!
#277
“Gotta love the way you move the goal posts. First I downplay the dangers of radical Islam, and now I have to do something about it. ”
Your answer explains exactly why liberals rarely have solutions to problems. Talking about is only the first step and the easiest one at that.
“Explain how the invasion of Iraq, that posed no threat to the US and had no radical Islamic fundamentalist government helps towards stopping its spread?”
Answer my question first and I will oblige.
“Yes, it has. Both terms need to be interchageable. That’s what synonyms are.”
Whatever you say.
“Ok, then you were speculating, and have no basis for your contention that Iran is trying to spread their version of Islamic fundamentalism.”
Then why are they trying to become the dominant power in the region?
“You didn’t say it. Your logical leaps make sense only to you.”
I can’t believe how unsophisticated your ability to make logical connections is.
“Maybe if you followed the news more closely you wouldn’t accuse others of having “oblivious views.
Nobody -except for the Bush administration- is talking about Iran’s nuclear program about a de facto quest for nuclear weapons.”
The Bush never said it had proof that Iran had a secret nuclear program. BTW the Israelis, with the best intelligence agency regarding the Middle East, has no doubt that Iran has a secret nuke program.
This is your quote:
“Also, Iran is not “getting nukes†or trying. They are building a nuclear reactor to produce energy”
This sounds like PURE speculation and wishful thinking and is totally contradictory to what conclusion EU has come to; however, it’s what the Iranian government has said….maybe you are the one with the “in” regarding Iran.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050900722_2.html
“The deeply divided Security Council has been wrestling with the draft resolution on Iran’s nuclear program, which the United States and its European allies fear is intended to make weapons and Iran maintains is solely for peaceful purposes.”
“To forestall that ambition, the UN and the IAEA are looking for assurances that Iran won’t use the knowledge towards that end.”
And the are going to keep looking and when they do Iran sure as hell isn’t going to abide by them.
“At any rate, Iran currently does not have the capacity to build a nuclear bomb. ”
And you have proof of this? The IAEA has stated multiple time over the last year that the do not currently have the ability to verify all aspects of Iran’s nuclear program. You don’t know what their capabilities are.
December 8th, 2006 at 10:50 am#279
“Again, your logical leaps make sense only to you.”
No they make sense to someone who has a more sophisticated logical connection ability.
“If the Bush administration had this in mind, they certainly didn’t mention it.”
Again, 2 + 2 = 4.
December 8th, 2006 at 10:52 am#281
“First, your post mentioned no time frame.”
Why did it have to?
“Second, this is exactly why I said fundamentalism, whether Islamic, Jewish, or Christian, is a threat to secular, representative democracies.”
I totally agree which is why the U.S., Europe, ect….don’t have religious fundamentalists running the govenrment.
“Such a form of government cannot exist as long as government is mixed with religion -the very goal of fundamentalists everywhere.”
That is false because our government is mixed with religion and we are doing just fine as far as political stability is concerned. The constitution and the laws base on it’s contents prevents it from becoming a religious fundamentalist ruling body.
December 8th, 2006 at 10:58 am#288
“Wha? Many countries around the world still have totalitarian regimes. I would be very hard-pressed to conclude from that fact that those people only understand through the use of force. ”
Answer my question. If it’s a totalitarian regime then the people know that a rebellion would be met by the use of force. Just about every coup against totalitarian regimes have involved bloodshed.
“It is a non-sequitur.”
For you it is…and only you.
“Ah, so they don’t understand only by force, do they? Democracy can be introduced by means other than military invasion, can’t it?”
It’s possible yes, but we don’t have hundreds of years for the Muslim world to learn to embrace democracy with this rise and rapidly growing Islamic fundementalist ideology. The Islamic Revolution in 1979 made the Iranian form of government change 180 degrees very quickly…in less than five years.
“It is not a Muslim characteristic to be undemocratic.”
Which is why we must push for democracy especially when the Islamic fundamentalists are rapidly spreading their hate ideology.
“Turkey is a democracy. So are Bangladesh, Algeria, Indonesia, and others.”
Do the religious leaders of those coutries have the final say on ALL major political decisions like they do in Iran. You do realize that Ahmadinejad can tie his shoes without permission…don’t you?
December 8th, 2006 at 11:28 am#311 Tracy
Your answer explains exactly why liberals rarely have solutions to problems. Talking about is only the first step and the easiest one at that.
Interestingly enough, right-wingers have done nothing to solve the problem, either. But, at least they’ve gotten a lot of people killed needlessly in the process. Way to go.
“Ok, then you were speculating, and have no basis for your contention that Iran is trying to spread their version of Islamic fundamentalism.â€
Then why are they trying to become the dominant power in the region?
Maybe they’re just trying to build up a defense against the pre-emptive attack that Bush has virtually guaranteed will happen if they don’t have an effective deterrent (i.e. nuclear). You see, that’s the problem with his pre-emptive war policy. It immediately puts countries on notice that they’d better beef up their defenses or Bush will attack, as evidenced by Iraq who didn’t have an adequate defense and was therefore destroyed. Call it diplomacy in reverse.
By the way, why is it okay for Israel to possess a nuclear arsenal and not have the IAEA inspect while it’s forbidden for Iran to even produce one weapon? Shouldn’t Israel be part of the effort to make the Middle East a nuclear-free zone?
December 8th, 2006 at 11:31 am#295
No the real answer is Spungeboy needs his LITTE ass kicked.
December 8th, 2006 at 11:38 amAmerican Press Corp is a total embarrasment compared to Brits. Imagine Bush standing in the congress and answering questions (like Blair must do in Parliment) instead of delivering inane pep talks to small groups of military people or political contributors. My God, what would that be like?
December 8th, 2006 at 12:33 pm#300
“Those Christian fundamentalists who bomb Planned Parenthood clinics are engaged in something of a jihad, too. Therefore, all terrorists should be called Christian fundamentalists. Okay.”
No those particular Christian fundamentalists who bombed those clinics should be called terrorists just as those who carried out 9/11 should also be called terrorists; however, the vast majority of Muslims and Christians are not terrorists.
“Check again. Iran is closer to controlling Iraq through the Shiites now than they ever were while Saddam was in power.”
It is preventing it because if we follow the asinine advise of Murtha and others then Iran would definately take Iraq over and rather quickly.
“So, I guess that means bin Laden’s off the hook?”
“So, when we got Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, we were all done fighting back against the people who attacked us on 9/11, right?”
No. Why are you asking a BS question? This idea that we, i.e. the left in the U.S., can only concentrate on one terrorist or problem at a time is very disheartening. Do you not think that for the last 5 years that the U.S. NSA, CIA, FBI and Defence Department has been concentrating on one problem at a time in regards to fighting the terrorists?
“I’m sorry. I keep forgetting which reason we’re on now.”
You are very linear and one dimensional aren’t you. You must work on an assembly line.
“So, you’re saying we should go all out to stomp out Islamic fundamentalism, but stop short at the borders of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia…”
I am saying that disposing of Saddam, a secular tyrant, was far less inflamatory to the Muslim world that invading the most holy place in the Muslim world, i.e. Saudi Arabia. The Middle East didn’t blow up with violent anger because Saddam was ousted from power.
“I’m not saying we should attack those countries, but I’m still waiting to hear why you think destroying Iraq is okay and destroying Iran would be okay,…”
Destroying Iraq? We didn’t invade Iraq because Saddam was a Islamic fundamentalist wacko tho was letting large terrorist groups like al Qaeda operate from inside his borders. We took out Saddam because all of the intelligence reports said he was in possession of WMDs and that Iraq was the best bet in trying to establish political change in the Middle East because it’s leader was weak and NOT supported by the people.
“….destroying Iran would be okay.”
We aren’t going to go into Iran. We would only launch attacks against Iran if it were found in possession of weapons grade nuclear material.
December 8th, 2006 at 1:13 pm#301
“Care to elaborate on that thought?”
I should have said “main reason”.
December 8th, 2006 at 1:14 pmU.S. DEFINITION OF DEMOCRACY
An unelected leader (dictator) that takes orders from the U.S. leads a democracy (regardless of how many must die to keep him in power) eg Sadam before he turned on his handlers.
An elected leader that does not take orders from the U.S. is UNdemocratic and must be overthrown. (especially if he returns some of the profits made from the country’s resources of his country to the citizens of that country, as opposed to U.S companies) eg. Chavez
December 8th, 2006 at 1:27 pm#302
“Well, all of the reasons are out on the table now, supposedly, and the American people are none too happy about what Bush has done with our troops.”
I am not happy either. However everyone here knows for a fact that IF the situation in Iraq was better and more the way we all hoped it would turn out then the American people would be giving Bush at least a 60-70% approval rating. The American people are unhappy with the results, NOT the premise of the invasion.
“And you’re flat out wrong about the American people. They’ll go to great lengths to fight for other people’s freedom.”
I don’t think for a minute that if Bush said the we are going into Iraq remove a dictator in order to set up a democracy which would in order stem the tide of Islamic fundamentalism that they would have agreed to send a single troop.
“It’s just too bad you can’t understand that. Maybe you don’t belong here. Maybe this isn’t the country you thought it was. ”
I understand it better than you do. I have family and friends in the military. I see how the post invasion was handled poorly, but I still believe that we can’t sit around and wait for a hunderd years while most of the Muslim worlds decides to embrace democracy and reject the Islamic fundamentalist. BTW maybe it you that doesn’t belong here considering you think that all rich people are lazy and don’t make sacrifices.
December 8th, 2006 at 1:33 pm#305
“Although it originally appeared shortly after the last election, I think the article is so fundamentally honest and insightful that it bears dissemination until every American has read it. You can read the whole thing here.”
That is the biggest piece of crap propaganda I have seen in a long time that it was probably written by Hugo Chavez himself. LOL!! What I find amazing about the article is that when the Republicans esentially took control of the U.S. goverment in 1994 was just about the time the internet got going. A wealth of news and information not avaliable to the American people for the last 40+ years, however the idiot who wrote the article Jame Smiley would have you believe that the Ameican people are more ignorant now than they were before the 1990s. Talk about an apologist for a failed ideology…she takes that cake.
December 8th, 2006 at 1:45 pm#315
“Interestingly enough, right-wingers have done nothing to solve the problem, either. But, at least they’ve gotten a lot of people killed needlessly in the process. Way to go.”
Well at least you don’t disagree that MOST (I should have said that earlier)liberals do is talk. BTW the USSR didn’t collapse on it’s own.
“Maybe they’re just trying to build up a defense against the pre-emptive attack that Bush has virtually guaranteed will happen if they don’t have an effective deterrent (i.e. nuclear). ”
You make it sound as if Iran has no interest in dominating it’s neighbors, which of course patently false. Hell they already control Syria and Lebanon.
“By the way, why is it okay for Israel to possess a nuclear arsenal and not have the IAEA inspect while it’s forbidden for Iran to even produce one weapon?”
Because the UN knows that Israel won’t use them in an offensive manner. Plus the have never drafted or contimplated drafting a resolution that would prohibit Isreal from having nukes. Again Israel has never advoated anihalating Iran from the face of the earth.
December 8th, 2006 at 1:59 pm#318 Tracy
No. Why are you asking a BS question? This idea that we, i.e. the left in the U.S., can only concentrate on one terrorist or problem at a time is very disheartening. Do you not think that for the last 5 years that the U.S. NSA, CIA, FBI and Defence Department has been concentrating on one problem at a time in regards to fighting the terrorists?
If you pull the troops out of Afghanistan and send them to Iraq (yes, that’s what we did), that is not concentrating on two problems at the same time. That’s abandoning the real one and going after the manufactured one. In the meantime, the Taliban have come back and are running much of Afghanistan again. We are getting very close to losing Afghanistan. Is that your idea of multi-tasking?
December 8th, 2006 at 2:20 pm#318 Tracy
No those particular Christian fundamentalists who bombed those clinics should be called terrorists just as those who carried out 9/11 should also be called terrorists; however, the vast majority of Muslims and Christians are not terrorists.
If you’re going to use “Islamic fundamentalists” to mean Islamic terrorists, why not use “Christian fundamentalists” to mean Christian terrorists? How would that sit with all the Christian fundamentalists out there who aren’t inclined to blow up buildings and kill at random?
You call them “Islamic fundamentalists” because you’re of the mind that painting all of Islam with a broad brush makes it a lot easier to direct people’s animosity. It’s not your ox that’s getting gored, so you don’t mind if all of Islam is seen by the West as intolerant and violent. Right-wingers like to keep their hate-mongering simple.
December 8th, 2006 at 2:30 pm#318 Tracy
You are very linear and one dimensional aren’t you. You must work on an assembly line.
I’ll take “linear and one dimensional” over “vacuous” any day. You’re anyting but linear. You can’t follow a deductive argument. You’re unable to recognize your contradictions no matter how carefully they’re explained to you. Try going back and addressing the issue: WE DIDN’T GET THE PEOPLE WHO ATTACKED US ON 9/11. We skipped away from that task and launched into something completely unrelated to it. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the “war on terror”. We stopped fighting the “war on terror” and jumped into something completely different that has been rationalized at different times with any of at least a half dozen different lies. Never mind “We can concentrate on more than one thing at the same time.” We’re not doing it. We’re failing in the “war on terror” because we started the war in Iraq. We’ve increased the number of terrorists who want to kill us and we’ve seen an increase in the number of terrorist attacks around the world. Before the invasion of Iraq, no terrorists operating in Iraq. After the invasion of Iraq, it’s a terrorist recruitment center. Face the goddam facts, would you?!
Christ almighty, what a freakin’ ditz!
December 8th, 2006 at 2:47 pm#318 Tracy
We took out Saddam because all of the intelligence reports said he was in possession of WMDs and that Iraq was the best bet in trying to establish political change in the Middle East because it’s leader was weak and NOT supported by the people.
No. All of the intelligence reports did not say he was in possession of WMDs. There had been several sources that contradicted that and some that said the administration’s sources were totally unreliable. Those were ignored and kept from everyone outside of the administration. The administration was determined to invade Iraq and made sure that only evidence, tainted as it was, that supported the call for an invasion would be provided to Congress and the public. You can read all about it after the impeachment. It should finally make it to the front pages by then, even in the right-wing rags.
Iraq’s leader wasn’t weak, but the country was. The military had been decimated by the first Gulf War. It was easy pickings. But, this is one more new rationalization you’re throwing into the mix, that we attacked Iraq to establish a foothold from which to transform the Middle East. What a neo-con way of thinking: let’s sacrifice something real, like several thousand innocent lives, for something abstract that we can’t even begin to describe, like democracy in the Middle East. And how neo-con of you to think we haven’t seen enough death and destruction, yet, to say it wasn’t worth the cost. Show some dedication. Throw your own life on the heap.
December 8th, 2006 at 3:16 pm#318 Tracy
We aren’t going to go into Iran. We would only launch attacks against Iran if it were found in possession of weapons grade nuclear material.
You say that as if you actually know what Bush would do. After the faked evidence of WMD trailers, yellow-cake sales from Niger, etc., you’re going to trust the administration to give you the straight skinny on Iran’s nuclear program to justify an attack? Talk about a slow learner.
December 8th, 2006 at 3:19 pm#321 Tracy
BTW maybe it you that doesn’t belong here considering you think that all rich people are lazy and don’t make sacrifices.
I don’t think that all rich people are lazy. But, the rich people who support the war while demanding tax cuts, whose kids aren’t the ones getting killed over there, and who then spend more to buy favors from congressmen than they even get back in tax cuts, are not my idea of patriotic Americans. We can do without them.
December 8th, 2006 at 3:30 pmSnotty reporter, sarcastic “question.†Dubya put him in his place. Good for Dubya!
Comment by Exley — December 7, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
Exley – you’re almost as big an idiot as Bush!
December 8th, 2006 at 5:32 pmGuess again, they’re secretly here right now. Think about the open Mexican border, hmmm. Also, more terrorist cells are recruiting non-arab people. They’re also being secretly financed by other middle eastern regions. Please read “Fight Back Liddy Style†by G. Gordon Liddy.
Comment by Daryll
Be afraid Daryll, Trish and Tracy, be VERY AFRAID. They’re everywhere I tell you, they’re coming to get YOU and your kids. BE AFRAID!!!!!:D
December 8th, 2006 at 6:22 pmI can’t be called a liberal. I like guns and killing stuff for food. I also support the death penalty, as some people need killin’.
Comment by SpudgeBoy
Including people like YOU!!!:D
December 8th, 2006 at 7:28 pm“It’s bad in Iraq.That help?”
December 8th, 2006 at 7:42 pm2,923 families of America’s finest are devastated,and all you can do
is spout one-liners?
Wipe that shit-eating grin off your face,you fascist sack of pus..
Hope you are driven from the Office you have no buissnes occupying,get dragged before the World Court,and consigned to that dog kennel you built in Cuba for the rest of your miserable life.
BASTARD!!!!
He just doesn’t get it! He’s a smart ass and an arrogant buffoon!
December 8th, 2006 at 9:08 pm#329
I agree….there are lazy rich people, there are lazy poor people, as well as lazy middle class people.
December 9th, 2006 at 1:17 am#331
They aren’t comming for you. You have nothing they want.
December 9th, 2006 at 1:18 am#324
“We are getting very close to losing Afghanistan.”
Thanks NATO for doing such a good job of relieving the U.S. troops.
“Is that your idea of multi-tasking?”
Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn’t represent but about half of all of the current anti terrorism operations that the U.S. is currently engaged in.
December 9th, 2006 at 1:23 am#325
“If you’re going to use “Islamic fundamentalists†to mean Islamic terrorists, why not use “Christian fundamentalists†to mean Christian terrorists?”
Sounds good to me.
“How would that sit with all the Christian fundamentalists out there who aren’t inclined to blow up buildings and kill at random?”
Probably not too well and I am not inclined to label Islamic fundamentalists as terrorist as long as they have not called for Jihad by the sword, which by definition is the violent form.
“Right-wingers like to keep their hate-mongering simple.”
And left wingers like to keep their denial in the closet.
December 9th, 2006 at 1:31 am#327
“No. All of the intelligence reports did not say he was in possession of WMDs”
OK most of them did.
“Those were ignored and kept from everyone outside of the administration.”
The Senate intelligence committee had access to everything the administration did.
“You can read all about it after the impeachment.”
Care to wager on the fact that impeachment hearing will not be called? That’s unless Pelosi, does a 180 by going back on her word.
“Iraq’s leader wasn’t weak, but the country was.”
He was weak which is why his troops didn’t fight for him during the invasion….
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/10/iraq.us/index.html
December 9th, 2006 at 1:56 am#328
Explain how with the situation in Iraq as bad as it is and the political opposition upper hand now with the Democrats, please tell me how you think he would be able to do it other than like I said….if Iran was found to be in possession of nuclear grade material?
December 9th, 2006 at 1:59 amtracy.340, IF is the question here. If my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle.
December 9th, 2006 at 11:51 am