ThinkFast: January 26, 2007
ThinkFast: January 26, 2007
“Memo to Tim Russert: Dick Cheney thinks he controls you.” Yesterday in the Scooter Libby trial, Vice President Cheney’s former communications director displayed notes from 2004 “about how Cheney could respond to allegations that the Bush administration had played fast and loose with evidence of Iraq’s nuclear ambitions.” Option 1 was “MTP-VP,” a Cheney appearance on Russert’s Sunday show, which would allow Cheney to “control message.” “I suggested we put the vice president on ‘Meet the Press,’ which was a tactic we often used.”
Prime Minister al-Maliki’s presentation of a new Baghdad security plan to the Iraqi Parliament yesterday “broke down in bitter sectarian recriminations, with Mr. Maliki threatening a Sunni Arab lawmaker with arrest and, in response, the Sunni speaker of Parliament threatening to quit.” They eventually approved the plan.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), chairman of the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, has scheduled a hearing next Tuesday to explore whether Congress has the authority to cut off funding for the war in Iraq. “This hearing will help inform my colleagues and the public about Congress’s power to end a war and how that power has been used in the past,” Feingold said. See the witness list here.
“The word I would use to describe my position on the bench is lonely,” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 73, tells USA Today. “This is how it was for Sandra [Day O'Conner]’s first 12 years,” she said. “Neither of us ever thought this would happen again. I didn’t realize how much I would miss her until she was gone.”
The White House has “authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranians who are believed to be working with Iraqi militias,” a shift from an old policy of detaining Iranians “and then releasing them after a few days, which the Bush administration felt didn’t go far enough.”
The Bush administration is asking a federal circuit court to throw out a lawsuit challenging the legality of the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program because the government claims the issue is now “moot.” The Justice Department memo states that “the surveillance activity” being challenged “does not exist.”
Fox News said Thursday that it “planned to broadcast footage from ABC’s controversial miniseries ‘The Path to 9/11′ that was edited out of the docudrama amid criticism that it inaccurately portrayed the Clinton administration’s response to the terrorism threat.” It will be aired Sunday night on “Hannity’s America.”
Former Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari, who once worked closely with the Bush administration, has rejected President Bush’s escalation plan: “In my assessment, we do not necessarily need an increase in the strength (of US forces). We are not engaged in a conventional war against an invading army or something of the sort.”
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is “installing in her Capitol Hill office energy-efficient lights that dim in response to natural light.” At her urging, five other senators are doing the same. Boxer notes that efforts “could cut electricity consumption as much as 50 percent in participating offices.”
And finally: Who are you calling ‘freshman’? That term has become the latest politically-incorrect word, according to House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC). Newly elected Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA) told the crowd that he “’suspected’ it had something to do with the word ‘new’ being more appealing to the public than ‘freshman,’ which can be seen by some as derogatory.”
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Dragging out path to 9/11 again? Maybe Hannity should show some clips from 9/11 Press for Truth. But why question the official events, just blame Clinton.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:07 amThe White House has “authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranians who are believed to be working with Iraqi militias,†a shift from an old policy of detaining Iranians “and then releasing them after a few days, which the Bush administration felt didn’t go far enough.â€
Of course…the previous policy wasn’t nearly enough of a provocation.
This way, when our ships in the Gulf get attacked, necessitating a response from us, it won’t be too hard to imagine that Iran was the one doing the attacking.
The writing on the wall is clear as day if you open your eyes.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:09 amClinton STILL under the skin of f*ck face conservatives?
I love it.
They just can’t seem to get over the fact that he was one of the best Presidents of this century, can they?
Sorry-assed losers. And look at what your party has given us for a President! No wonder you’re SO jealous!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!
January 26th, 2007 at 9:12 am#2- Agreed. It’s maddening watching Bush march the country into another war. He can’t finish one he starts, they become unpopular or forgotten, so he moves to the next “target” thinking it will garner him popular support. How wrong he is.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:14 amFox News said Thursday that it “planned to broadcast footage from ABC’s controversial miniseries ‘The Path to 9/11′ that was edited out of the docudrama amid criticism that it inaccurately portrayed the Clinton administration’s response to the terrorism threat.†It will be aired Sunday night on “Hannity’s America.â€
Portraying these lies as truth weakens America by focusing our attention on a false reason for 9/11, drawing attention away from the ones who are truly to blame.
Therefore, this speech is not protected under the First Amendment and should not be allowed.
However, this sort of thing is allowed to continue, but when the NY Times prints a story containing information that is already within the public domain, Hannity and his cronies all howl for blood.
This country is sick, and no amount of medicine is going to work at this late date. Surgery is the only viable option.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:15 ambuzzbomb sez:
This isn’t about public support. Chimpy and his cronies have never given a damn about what the public think. This is about the neocons establishing their Imperial ‘new world order’ by destroying the ME and seizing its oil reserves for themselves.
This administration came into power by election fraud and judicial cronyism in 2000, and they’ve had the bit between their teeth ever since. Forget the 2008 elections…they mean to attack Iran well before 2008, and if they do, we’ll have to see the resulting World War through just to stay alive.
If they aren’t stopped NOW, they never will be, and this country will be transformed beyond recognition, into something George Orwell couldn’t have imagined on his worst day.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:22 amWait! Wait! Wait! We’ve got a trial going on, exposing the secretive workings of the office of the Vice-President, and Fox is going to show us, what? out-takes from The Path to 9/11?
So, while a real trial is going on exposing lies and cover-ups, we get to watch a fictional account that lies and covers-up?
I can just hear the VP now, “PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN….I AM THE WISE AND POWERFUL…DICK!”
annnnd…if that doesn’t work, he’ll just shoot you in the face.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:25 amInsannity is already trying to infer Hillary’s camp did the story on Obama’s early schooling. I guess he figures he can kill two birds with one lie, eh?
He states, ‘Now, I’m not anti-Muslim, I just want the truth’. RIGHT!
January 26th, 2007 at 9:26 amThen proceeds to speculate that if Obama ‘is Muslim’, he’s considered an Infidel & the extremists will cut his head off…can we have a man like this as POTUS?
Of course, he never mentions Bush’s Muslim appointee to the UN. Talk about being in denial, blowing a bullshit horn & lying all at the same time!
TM Monkey- your right, it is more about empire. They don’t give a crap about support- look no further than the troop “surge”. THanks for the correction.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:27 amPortraying these lies as truth weakens America by focusing our attention on a false reason for 9/11, drawing attention away from the ones who are truly to blame.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
Gee, all they want to show are scenes that were cut out of a DOCU-DRAMA due to political pressure. The scenes in question supposedly make Clinton look bad. So what? No one is presenting the scenes as fact.
The White House has “authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranians who are believed to be working with Iraqi militias,†a shift from an old policy of detaining Iranians “and then releasing them after a few days, which the Bush administration felt didn’t go far enough.â€
Imagine that! The US Military Can kill or capture someone in Iraq that may be attempting to do us harm. What a concept.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:29 amWill FOX be showing the Reagan “docudrama” also……thought not.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:30 amIf you have time here is the transcript from a sept. 03 interview with the VP.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:35 amhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/
The White House has “authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranians who are believed to be working with Iraqi militias,â€
the key word here: believed. Not proven, just a vague maybe. Gitmo anyone?
Let the second middle east stabilization begin.
God help us all!
The Path to 9/11′ that was edited out of the docudrama amid criticism that it inaccurately portrayed the Clinton administration’s response to the terrorism threat.†It will be aired Sunday night on “Hannity’s America.â€
Still beating that dead horse, eh? To you 28% (Hi Exley, hey St.Daryll), you do know that the majority of United State Citizens consider Clinton a great president, while an even greater majority of Europeans consider him one of the best presidents, ever!
And you got???? DUBYA!
BWAAAHAAAHAAAHAAA
I fell so sorry for the ditto heads that blindly follow, lock and step, our Thief in Charge.
On a really touched a nerve note, a 20 year old Marine was killed in Iraq this week. Why bring this up, you may ask? Because Mr.Castillo grew up about 15 miles from where I live. This hit home, hard! Too young, dammit, too young. I pray for his family, and I pray…BRING OUR TROOPS HOME, NOW!!!
January 26th, 2007 at 9:37 amDamn Bush! Damn him!
No one is presenting the scenes as fact.
Comment by hacker bob
How do you know since it hasn’t happened yet? Will they present it as fiction or leave that for the viewer to decide? This is the dubious nature of FOX. Present something false then sit back with no clarification to the viewer and let their minds run wild. Pitiful and disgusting tactic.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:38 amThat’s FOXNews for you. The Path to 9/11 was a complete fabrication. Everything was Clinton’s fault according to them.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:39 amHacker bob,
Ever pretend?
Okay now pretend you’re an innocent Iranian businessman driving a truckload of your legal goods into Iraq for sale. Now here comes an A10 Warthog, and since they have clearance to shoot first and ask questions later, they destroy your truck, kill you and your son.
This is the America you want spreading freedom?
January 26th, 2007 at 9:40 amComment by BlahBlahBlah
I guess you didn’t read the article where it srates that the policy does not apply to civilians or diplomats. It applies to Intel Officers and Republican Guard that are working with the militias. Guess what, those targets (individuals) are not located or targeted by Warthogs.
How do you know since it hasn’t happened yet? Will they present it as fiction or leave that for the viewer to decide? This is the dubious nature of FOX. Present something false then sit back with no clarification to the viewer and let their minds run wild. Pitiful and disgusting tactic.
Comment by dlet
I’ve seen the promos for the thing on Sunday and they use the words “Fiction” and Docu-Drama”. Sounds like they are not trying to pass it off as fact to me.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:46 amThe hope is that Senator Feingold’s hearing next week regarding cutting off the funding for the occupation in Iraq will open up the eyes of his colleagues, both Democratic and Republican, so they can finally understand that this is the most viable way to end the war/occupation in Iraq. The more money that is appropriated for Iraq the less money there is available for vital services at home. Will these politicians once again succumb to the illusionary, siren song of false patriotism or will they finally decide to do their job by starving the war machine in Iraq?
January 26th, 2007 at 9:46 amImagine that! The US Military Can kill or capture someone in Iraq that may be attempting to do us harm. What a concept.
Comment by hacker bob — January 26, 2007 @ 9:29 am
Keywords: kill or capture, may be attempting.
How totally unAmerican.
Let’s see, back in the States, how about we kill or capture any person in possesion of the Quran, because they may be engaged in terrorists activity.
To steal from the all time classic, Animal House:
January 26th, 2007 at 9:47 amSon, Blind Drunk and Brainwashed is no way to go thru life
This is one constant with this president, he enjoys killing. It is clearly something that will never make America safer and it’s past time to not talk about the mental / emotional balance of this raving idiot in the WH. He’ll never get enough of killing other peoples’ sons and daughters in order to feel like he’s king of the world.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:49 amAw, be nice to slacker bob,
He’s just a product of our broken/misguided Military.
Thanks Shrub.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:50 amhacker bob sez:
They were cut out because they were demonstrably false. Spare us the ‘political pressure’ garbage.
It’s a docudrama based upon real people and real events, but contains documented falsehoods about some of those people (who, as it turns out, happen to be the political opponents of the filmmakers).
And you persist in claiming that ‘no one is presenting the scenes as fact’. OK…so how are they being presented, then? Opinion? Can’t be opinion, because the allegations made by the scenes have been shown to be false. So why would Hannity present a scene from a movie that he knows to be a lie?
Face it, the only reason for showing these scenes is in the hope that gullible people (FOX’s base) will accept it as truthful, any weak protestations of ‘no one’s presenting them as fact’ notwithstanding.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:52 amIn Iraq, U.S. troops now have the authority to target any member of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, as well as officers of its intelligence services believed to be working with Iraqi militias. The policy does not extend to Iranian civilians or diplomats. Though U.S. forces are not known to have used lethal force against any Iranian to date, Bush administration officials have been urging top military commanders to exercise the authority.
Keyword here: any Iranian.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:54 amSo, does the Iran’s Revolutionary Guard have a distinct uniform to identify? Or do they just blend in with normal civilians?
Hacker Bob, the average fox news viewer takes all of their fictions as facts, why would htey not take this fictional, no fantasy version of 911 and think it to be factual? Back when the discussion about this film was going on the far right koolaid drinking fox watching branch of the public took it for fact. That has been their mantra since 911…clinton’s fault, ignore our 9 months of inactivity and blame clinton we did nothing, oops I mean we did ntohing wrong, blame clinton. I knwo quite afew people who take everything on Fox to be factual, expecillay when it comes to taring clinton.
As to the shoot to kill, I find it troubling that they can shoot to kill people believed. If you follow Bob’s logic, you have to get up close to these people, essentially have them in custody to prove that your beliefs are accurate annd then you cna shoot them. It is just not going to work that way and thhe business man in a truck is goinng to get blowed up real good. My Buddy who is on his second tour said they would essentially blow up buildings they suspected that people had shot at them from, they wouldn’t know for certain, they would simply suspect. What makes anyone think this would be different?
January 26th, 2007 at 9:56 amComment by DRxJ
So, If I am in Iraq, and someone attempts to kill me, do I not have the right to kill or capture them regardless of their nationality?
Just because they are Iranian, Iraqi, or Irish makes no difference.
Give you something simple here. If they are just planning something to harm us, then capture them. If they are activly trying to kill us (as in, with weapons) then kill them.
Comment by DieNowForPeace
Fu*k you.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:56 amI’ve seen the promos for the thing on Sunday and they use the words “Fiction†and Docu-Dramaâ€. Sounds like they are not trying to pass it off as fact to me.
Comment by hacker bob
Well at least they have done that. I don’t have the stomach to watch FOX too often or for any great length of time. My main point about FOX still stands though. When I do watch it, it’s “news” is ambiguous and opinion laden.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:00 amGive you something simple here. If they are just planning something to harm us, then capture them. If they are activly trying to kill us (as in, with weapons) then kill them.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:01 amComment by hacker bob — January 26, 2007 @ 9:56 am
Here, I’ll help your post so that it conforms to the new procedure:
If we believe they are just planning something to harm us, then capture them. If we believe they are activly trying to kill us (as in, with weapons) then kill them.
Hacker bob,
Is that the same policy that prevents Marines from killing women and children?
I thought so…
And if you haven’t noticed none of the “insurgents” are wearing uniforms. None of those supposed Iranians helping are either. *if so where’s the photos of dead Iranian uniformed advisers of the insurgents?
So all the military has to say is “we believe they were”.
Write someone a blank check, and it will likely be abused.
This is all just more buildup bull crap to get us into war with Iran.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:03 amRussert’s a tool. The White House knew it. We knew it. Poor Timmy may be the last one to figure it out. Any chance of him refusing to be a patsy anymore? Na-a-a-ah.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:04 amKeyword here: any Iranian.
So, does the Iran’s Revolutionary Guard have a distinct uniform to identify? Or do they just blend in with normal civilians?
Comment by DRxJ
YEs, any Iranian are the key words. Now take the complete sentance:
Though U.S. forces are not known to have used lethal force against any Iranian to date,
Reads a little different than you would lead one to believe.
Now, take a better look at what you are failing to see.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:06 amIn Iraq, U.S. troops now have the authority to target any member of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, as well as officers of its intelligence services believed to be working with Iraqi militias. The policy does not extend to Iranian civilians or diplomats.
Here, I’ll help your post so that it conforms to the new procedure:
If we believe they are just planning something to harm us, then capture them. If we believe they are activly trying to kill us (as in, with weapons) then kill them.
Comment by DRxJ
IF someone has a gun, and it is pointed at you, and they pull the trigger, do you believe they are trying to kill you? I do.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:09 amIs that the same policy that prevents Marines from killing women and children?
I thought so…
Have I not said in the past that yes, tragidies happen? Anyone the diliberately takes the life of an INNOCENT is guilty of a war crime and needs to face punishment. But guess what! I am a Marine and I have NEVER killed a woman or a child. I know that to be 100% fact.
And if you haven’t noticed none of the “insurgents†are wearing uniforms. None of those supposed Iranians helping are either. *if so where’s the photos of dead Iranian uniformed advisers of the insurgents?
But you know what, they guy shooting at you with a gun or RPG does not need a uniform.
So all the military has to say is “we believe they wereâ€.
If you fire a weapon at me, I believe you are trying to kill me.
Comment by BlahBlahBlah
January 26th, 2007 at 10:14 amhacker bob, the complete sentence:
Though U.S. forces are not known to have used lethal force against any Iranian to date, Bush administration officials have been urging top military commanders to exercise the authority.
This basically states the Bush administration urges the authority to capture or kill any Iranian believed to be working with Iraqi militias.
Now, you didn’t answer my question.
How do you know if any Iranian is collaberating with the Iraqi militia? Are there distinct uniforms? Is their skin color different? Do they act different?
Sorry, but may be is just too vague
on a side note:
January 26th, 2007 at 10:14 amhacker bob, though we may disagree, I do appreciated your willingness to debate. Much better than the trolling of Rachel and JMH, whose sole purpose is to disrupt.
IF someone has a gun, and it is pointed at you, and they pull the trigger, do you believe they are trying to kill you? I do.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:17 amComment by hacker bob — January 26, 2007 @ 10:09 am
If I believe someone has a gun hidden upon them, and they are Iranian, do I try to kill them? Let’s say I do. Let’s say it was just an Iranian teen ager with only a pocket version of the Quran hidden upon him. Am I justified in what I’ve done?
Comment by dlet
I have the belief that if you want to argue about something intelligently, first you need to know what you are talking about.
Example: I may disagree with Michel Moore and 9/11. But I could not argue about it intelligently until I saw it. I can not rely on talking points or media. I have to witness things first hand, then draw my own conclusions.
I know, this goes against the very fabric of my political affiliation.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:19 amExample: I may disagree with Michel Moore and 9/11
January 26th, 2007 at 10:21 amComment by hacker bob — January 26, 2007 @ 10:19 am
I’m curious, what to you disagree with?
I am not quite sure that people are properly understanding the comment regarding Tim Russert.
I have long been a critic of Tim Russert because I have suspected that certain people get to set ground rules for the interview and Cheney is one of the “certain people” I had in mind. If you ever notice, Russert never asks Cheney follow-up questions. Russert will start with a basically good question, Cheney will rephrase the question then answer his own question and Russert simply moves on to his next question. Pelosi gave us an example of what a good follow-up question looks like.
A good example of how Cheney controls the message was his comment that the insurgents were “in their last throes”. Did anybody challenge Cheney to provide the matrix that this comment was based on? Hell no, because there was no matrix.
Russert can never be a good journalist because he permits his guests to set ground rules then he doesn’t have the balls to tell us that is the case. I certainly shed no tears that Russert has taken a hit on this issue. He had it coming.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:22 am#5 TMM says
..when the NY Times prints a story containing information that is already within the public domain, Hannity and his cronies all howl for blood.
TMM is right. The Fox channel and its blowdried blowhards who do not separate fact from fiction are becoming ever more extreme as time goes on – and as Bush&Co sink ever lower in public esteem.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:23 amTo say they are irresponsible in airing their version of “truth” is too mild — they must be exposed for the shills they are.
Our Lunatic in Chief is back to attacking yet another nation without one shred of justifying evidence. He is unable to admit, he himself created the hell hole and not Iran. He will never let the buck land on his, the Decider’s desk. It should remind everyone that Hitler did exactly the same.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:25 amslacker bob,
No thanks to your offer.
I like women, not cowardly, closeted homos who join the military to offset their inferiority complex.
Truth hurts, huh little man?
January 26th, 2007 at 10:26 am#7 BnF
January 26th, 2007 at 10:27 amThey are so transparent. Like sidewalk shysters of old, playing the old shell game — distraction, sleight of hand, and voila! They win, you lose.
Too many viewers haven’t yet realized they are being had.
This basically states the Bush administration urges the authority to capture or kill any Iranian believed to be working with Iraqi militias.
Now, you didn’t answer my question.
How do you know if any Iranian is collaberating with the Iraqi militia?
Are there distinct uniforms? Is their skin color different? Do they act different?
Sorry, but may be is just too vague
If we do a raid on a milita area, and there is an Iranian there, that is automatic assumption of collaberation.
As a side note: All households in Iraq are allowed to have ONE weapon, including AK47s per Adult/Military aged male.
hacker bob, though we may disagree, I do appreciated your willingness to debate. Much better than the trolling of Rachel and JMH, whose sole purpose is to disrupt.
Comment by DRxJ
Thanks. I know that sometimes my emotion gets the better of me, but I am willing to debate and not bomb throw completely. The trolling type you mentioned drive me up the wall as well.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:29 amhacker bob sez:
Well done, bob…you’ve managed to miss the point entirely. If the military accepted your rather restrictive definition of ‘belief’, then we wouldn’t have a problem. However, there is no evidence to suggest that they will be restricting themselves in this manner.
What will be the accepted definition of “believed to be an Iranian agent working with Iraqi militias”? A person who points a gun at you? Perhaps a person possessing a weapon? How about a person who seems to take too much interest in U.S. emplacements? Perhaps a person who has unexpected car trouble on the highway?
Obviously, this list can go on and on, but it’s quite beside the point. The point is that there’s no standard of proof required for the military to take action. “You think that guy has shifty eyes? Pop him…he’s an Iranian agent. It’s OK…Chimpy authorized us to kill whoever we think might be a threat.”
Now, I’m not saying that all of our soldiers over there are going to immediately fall into this despicable mindset, but remember, these soldiers are very tired, and thanks to this administration’s dreadful mismanagement, there’s no goal for them other than to sleep with one eye open and try to stay alive. Even the best of our soldiers might be thus tempted to shoot first and ask questions later, especially when you receive carte blanche to do so from your Commander-in-Chief.
In short, it’s the latest horrible twist to the horrible situation our young men and women are in over there. And, it also accomplishes Chimpy’s unstated goal of further antagonizing Iran in the hopes that they will be goaded into action. Going to war with Iran will be so much easier when we have that excuse.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:29 amEvery rule has an exception people.
It’s war, it’s messy, someone’s getting smoked. I hope it was the right people who get it. I hate it when the wrong person gets it. When too many “wrong” people get killed, it might not be worth it.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:29 amIt’s great that Fox has to put “The Path to 9/11″ on the air just so they can at least have some fake news about 9/11 that shows Bush in a positive light. The truth exposes Bush as an incompetent leader who was focused on missile defense after being told Bin Laden was an impending threat to America. And, when the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history occurred on Bush’s watch, he read a children’s book for seven minutes before reacting.
I guess if the truth makes you look like an incompetent boob, it’s time to make something up!
January 26th, 2007 at 10:30 amI frequently wrote to Russert’s MTP accusing him of failing only to provide the top hat and cane for Cheney’s tap dances on his show. I feel validated.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:30 amComment by DRxJ
I do not like how Michael more takes things out of context in order to fit his agenda.
But that is a different topic.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:31 amWhich is why I hate war, and was against going into Iraq from the very moment I knew it was being considered.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:32 amDon’t feed the trolls.
I did a bit of an experiment last week, and acted as a troll. I was surprised how many people reacted to my ‘anti-lord sinner’ insults. They were meant to look horribly written, too.
We need a big post on this, TP.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:34 amTP Editors:
I though you had said you were addressing the issue of the disappearing posts. As of now, you have obviously not resolved it.
I’m getting very sick of my posts disappearing into thin air, and I’m not alone in this sentiment.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:34 amI have the belief that if you want to argue about something intelligently, first you need to know what you are talking about.
Agreed.
Example: I may disagree with Michel Moore and 9/11. But I could not argue about it intelligently until I saw it. I can not rely on talking points or media. I have to witness things first hand, then draw my own conclusions.
But how did you know you disagreed with it BEFORE you saw it of you first believe that you should know what you’re talking about first?
This is my general complaint with most of your arguments. You pick a side and then seek tovalidate it, rather than hear the facts and then form an opinion.
I know, this goes against the very fabric of my political affiliation.
Comment by hacker bob — January 26, 2007 @ 10:19 am
The theory (or belief) most definitely does, but your practice of deciding and then validating is a very typical conservative action. And that is why you frequently paint yourself into corners in your arguments.
I continue to maintain that if you actually walked the talk, you’d be a progressive.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:36 amI do not like how Michael more takes things out of context in order to fit his agenda.
But that is a different topic.
Comment by hacker bob
Ever been accussed of being dumber than a bag of hair?
Replace “Michael MOORE” (sp-something you need help with) with FOX NEWS.
Idiot.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:38 amDon’t feed the trolls.
Comment by Xbot — January 26, 2007 @ 10:34 am
Silence in our culture means you accept or approve of what has been said.
While I am all for ignoring the insane trolls, I think it is important to voice our opposition to the conservatives. Otherwise, they would never get an education : )
January 26th, 2007 at 10:39 amNo thanks to your offer.
I like women, not cowardly, closeted homos who join the military to offset their inferiority complex.
Truth hurts, huh little man?
Comment by DieNowForPeace
Man, you just don’t know me at all so how are you qualified to make these assumptions?
I like women, as you say you do.
I am not cowardly. Not because of my military service, but because I stand up for what I feel is right. Much like you appear to.
I am not a closeted homophobe. I do not see how you could possably draw this conclusion. I could care less someones sexual orentation. That is not any of my business.
I did not join the military to offset some inferiority complex. I joined out of a desire to serve a nation that adopted my family when they migtated here from another nation.
So, what is your problem? Why do you not like military members? Why do you feel we join to make up for some kind of short coming? What have I done as an individual to you that makes you want to last out at me the way you do? You do not debate, you attack any one with a different view than your own.
Until you can answer these question, go f*ck yourself.
Have a nice day!
January 26th, 2007 at 10:39 amThis is a clip from an article today in the Washington Post about the permission now granted to capture of kill Iranians inside of Iraq. Excellent article.
A senior intelligence officer was more wary of the ambitions of the strategy.
“This has little to do with Iraq. It’s all about pushing Iran’s buttons. It is purely political,” the official said. The official expressed similar views about other new efforts aimed at Iran, suggesting that the United States is escalating toward an unnecessary conflict to shift attention away from Iraq and to blame Iran for the United States’ increasing inability to stanch the violence there.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012502199.html?referrer=email
January 26th, 2007 at 10:40 amBut how did you know you disagreed with it BEFORE you saw it of you first believe that you should know what you’re talking about first?
Unbe, maybe I didn’t state that the best way.
I disagree with MM’s view on most things. I did not disagree with the content of F9/11 until after I saw it as I had nothing to disagree with. But I was familiar with the way he does things from previous works of his and disagreed with his style of doing things.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:44 amI do not like how Michael more takes things out of context in order to fit his agenda.
Comment by hacker bob — January 26, 2007 @ 10:31 am
Examples?
January 26th, 2007 at 10:48 amI frequently enjoy feeding the trolls all my waste.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:55 amDieNowForPeace
January 26th, 2007 at 10:55 amUmmmm, please tell us how your really feel. Don’t hold it in like that.
Unbe, maybe I didn’t state that the best way.
Comment by hacker bob — January 26, 2007 @ 10:44 am
I think I understood – though more from the way you act and not as much from what you say you believe.
I’m a big believer that actions speak louder than words.
It’s not your words I disagree with, it’s you actions (because they contradict many of your beliefs). No offense. Just calling it like I see it. Which I know you don’t.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:58 amhacker bob:
Still waiting for a response to #22 and #43…
January 26th, 2007 at 10:58 amI do not like how Michael more takes things out of context in order to fit his agenda.
Comment by hacker bob — January 26, 2007 @ 10:31 am
Examples?
Comment by unbelievable
Unbe, we are distracting from the thread, but I will give the example of the stock footage he bought of the National Guard soldier that was being wheeled into surgery. Moore only showed the part of the tape that fit into his agenda.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:00 amWell, I certainly hope they capture or kill all Iranian operatives in Iraq.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:01 amBoth of them.
#40 DieNowForPeace
Please put down the blunderbuss, unless you’re intending to hit all veterans and members of the military with it. If you want to take shots at hacker bob, I’m sure he can fend for himself. But, if you’re going to start lashing out at all veterans, you’re going to be hitting a large number of the more progressive voices on this blog.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:02 ammemo to Timmy Russsert:
January 26th, 2007 at 11:03 amDon’t feel lonely.
Darth truly believes he controls all of us.
Who was it that called him “delusional” yesterday???
Yes- Back along, I was pretty upset with Hardball, Meet The Press, The Today Show and most of NBC’s corporate affiliates. While NBC seemed by far the worst to me, ABC and CBS was not far behind. A lot has changed in the past year, however, and I am now hearing many folks speak up and out against what they should have been, all along. It is unfortunate that the media in general has allowed this adminstration to run amok. It will take some doing to regain thier journalistic integrity and the trust of the viewing/listening public. That may be a good thing actually, since everything that has happened has only served to open up our eyes and make us all more intellectually curious. At least, I try to look at it in that light.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:03 amUnbe, we are distracting from the thread,
Think Fast is an open thread.
but I will give the example of the stock footage he bought of the National Guard soldier that was being wheeled into surgery. Moore only showed the part of the tape that fit into his agenda.
Comment by hacker bob — January 26, 2007 @ 11:00 am
How so? Please explain.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:05 amTMM
#22, the promos show that they are being shown as the scenes that Clinton did not want shown because they protray him in a negative light.
You may find some of the answers to #43 in #42. They posted at the same time.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:07 amI loved the way Wolf Blitzer actually asked Dick-tator about is hypocrisy.
When the man uses his spine, he actually can stand prone, look people in the eyes and ask vital questions.
Though I bet it’s the last time Blitzer is ever allowed within 50 feet of the Dick… LOL
January 26th, 2007 at 11:10 amHow so? Please explain.
Comment by unbelievable
MM didn’t show any of the footage of the soldier saying that he still though what we were doing in Iraq was the right thing, that he still believed in the cause.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:11 amIf the chymp truly wants war with Iran, let him openly declare it in the face of congress (who actually has the power to do that)
January 26th, 2007 at 11:11 amSo we can impeach his smarmy ass NOW>…
P.S. >> has anyone seen any response to Bush’s new kill Iranians policy from Maliki or any of the Iraqi governmental puppets, er, figures???
January 26th, 2007 at 11:13 amhacker bob sez:
Nice evasion, but you failed to address the point I raised in #22. Go back and read it again.
Another attempt at evasion, this time not so nice. Again, go back and read my post, and actually respond to the point I raised.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:15 amrobert – aka hacking bobby
Most soldiers are loathe to face the realization that their service and sacrifice are not for what they signed up for.
In Nam, most of us took several months, some close to the end of ourone year tours before we could admit the truth of our realizations about why and what we were doing there.
No link, just anecdotal. Been there, done that.
Ten or twenty years from now, these troops will still be living with the nightmares and memories of their participation. My hope is that they find the strength and inner peace to deal with it.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:16 amIt’s not your words I disagree with, it’s you actions (because they contradict many of your beliefs). No offense. Just calling it like I see it. Which I know you don’t.
Comment by unbelievable
It is unfortunate that you don’t know me. Not because I think I am great, but because you would get a chance to see the “real” me. I careing and compassionate person. You do not get to see my community involvement, or the causes I champion. Just like I do not get to see yours. All we have are words on a screen, and those are very shallow.
When pinned to a single issue, anyone can be viewed to be extreme or out of touch. But if you have a chance to look at a person as a whole, you can get a much better picture.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:17 amI watched Steny Hoyer on C-Span answering questions at a “Conservative Journalists…” something or other this morning…
…Steny shouldn’t be the House Leader for Dems…
…this a*shole believes in the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq…
…he’s critical of the criminal Bushite junta ONLY bec it hasn’t worked out…
…this sombich is basically a Bushite al Crackkker in Democrat’s clothing…
…he says he supported this invasion because of what Saddam was doing to his people…
…HELLO?
…how about what BUSH’S/Cheney’s policies are NOW doing to those people?
…what about what Bush/Cheney’s policies are doing to the people of New Orleans?
…(I know you racist al Crackkkers think they ought to pull themselves up by their “bootstraps”)…(f**K all of you)…
…what about what the Bush/Cheney criminal regime’s policies (of graft, fraud and corruption) are doing to our NATION?
…Hoyer is a Bushite bi*ch PERIOD!
…he’s not going to support cutting off funding for this occupation, OR impeaching and incarcerating the criminals who are prosecuting it…
…Dems should have picked Murtha…
…and they’ll regret they didn’t come ‘08…
…I’ll bet money on it!
January 26th, 2007 at 11:17 amMM didn’t show any of the footage of the soldier saying that he still though what we were doing in Iraq was the right thing, that he still believed in the cause.
Comment by hacker bob — January 26, 2007 @ 11:11 am
How do you know that such footage existed?
January 26th, 2007 at 11:17 am“Senior administration officials said the policy is based on the theory that Tehran will back down from its nuclear ambitions if the United States hits it hard in Iraq and elsewhere, creating a sense of vulnerability among Iranian leaders. But if Iran responds with escalation, it has the means to put U.S. citizens and national interests at greater risk in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.”
Another Bullshat theory doomed to failure. Why does the administration hate theory?
“Officials said Hayden counseled the president and his advisers to consider a list of potential consequences, including the possibility that the Iranians might seek to retaliate by kidnapping or killing U.S. personnel in Iraq.”
Consequences? We don’t consider any stinkin’ consequences!
January 26th, 2007 at 11:20 amMM didn’t show any of the footage of the soldier saying that he still though what we were doing in Iraq was the right thing, that he still believed in the cause.
Comment by hacker bob — January 26, 2007 @ 11:11 am
Even if that’s true (which you haven’t proven), I don’t think that invalidates his entire film. Mostly because it is a biased opinion, and not a FACT.
Do you have any facts that refute his film?
Thanks
January 26th, 2007 at 11:20 am#68 hacker bob
the promos show that they are being shown as the scenes that Clinton did not want shown because they protray him in a negative light.
I’d hate to have to dredge up all the supporting evidence that we went through the first time they wanted to air this junk, but the reason members of the Clinton administration objected to it was that it was full of complete and utter fabrications which were clearly intended to make the Clinton administration look bad. If you don’t like Madeleine Albright or Sandy Berger, I would at least hope you’d consider Richard Clarke a reliable source. And he said it was full of bunk. This is just Fox Noise looking for ways to take shots at Bush’s “enemies”. Nothing more.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:21 amThey were cut out because they were demonstrably false. Spare us the ‘political pressure’ garbage.
80% of the movie was false. So it should not have been seen?
It’s a docudrama based upon real people and real events, but contains documented falsehoods about some of those people (who, as it turns out, happen to be the political opponents of the filmmakers).
Based on actual events and people is a little different than saying it IS actual events. As long as it is presented that way up front, what is the issue? And it is not a matter, to me, that it is Clinton involved. I would not be happy if Bush or Bush pulled the same thing Clinton did.
And anyone that wants to watch it and think it is fact is a moron. I agree with that.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:22 amEven if that’s true (which you haven’t proven), I don’t think that invalidates his entire film. Mostly because it is a biased opinion, and not a FACT.
Do you have any facts that refute his film?
Thanks
Comment by unbelievable
Do I have to have facts to disagree with his opinion? I am not refuting the film, because you can not refute opinion.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:25 amGood morning, hacker bob. Having a nice day?
Heh.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:26 amIt is unfortunate that you don’t know me.
I don’t have to know you personally to see that your beliefs and actions in here do not parallel one another.
Not because I think I am great, but because you would get a chance to see the “real†me. I careing and compassionate person. You do not get to see my community involvement, or the causes I champion. Just like I do not get to see yours. All we have are words on a screen, and those are very shallow.
This isn’t personal robert. Don’t take it that way. It has nothing to do with whether or not either of us is a ‘good person’ or not. I’m sure you’re a nice guy in real life. But that has nothing to do with anything in here.
When pinned to a single issue, anyone can be viewed to be extreme or out of touch. But if you have a chance to look at a person as a whole, you can get a much better picture.
Comment by hacker bob — January 26, 2007 @ 11:17 am
I diagree. I was a debater in high school and college. We never got to know one another personally, because our personal lives had nothing to do with whether or not we could logically debate an issue. It is the same here.
Nothing personal. It’s your debating skills that I am referencing here. Not you personally.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:27 amComment by chimpeach
So, if I wanted to make a movie that protrayed Clinton as a drunken sex maniac that was completely remiss in his duties and I labled it as fiction, do you think that the Clinton administration should be able to come back and say that it can not be aired?
After all, it could put him in a bad light.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:28 amDo I have to have facts to disagree with his opinion? I am not refuting the film, because you can not refute opinion.
Comment by hacker bob — January 26, 2007 @ 11:25 am
But you did refute the film based on its merits. And, like it or not, the film was filled with facts, statistics and explanations.
Of course you can refute opinion. With facts that invalidate it.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:30 amGood morning, hacker bob. Having a nice day?
Heh.
Comment by Zooey
NOt enough coffee, too much rap music.
But, loving life.
How are you?
January 26th, 2007 at 11:30 amWell, I have to run…. Off to a conference.
Wish I were heading to DC instead.
I’m mentally with those of you who are going.
Power to the People!
Peace
January 26th, 2007 at 11:32 amBut you did refute the film based on its merits. And, like it or not, the film was filled with facts, statistics and explanations.
Of course you can refute opinion. With facts that invalidate it.
Comment by unbelievable
But, as you said, it was also filled with opinion.
I refute once scene based on facts that are in conflict. You chose to believe one side and I chose the other.
Without facts, I can still have an opinion.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:32 amI bet Big Russ would be so ashamed that little russ is pwned.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:45 amBut, loving life.
How are you?
Comment by hacker bob
Same. Got a a day off, and I’m going to study. Surprise!
January 26th, 2007 at 11:47 am#76 big papa— I agree with you that Steny Hoyer is not the man for the job…In fact just 48 hours before the vote..Congressman Murtha was the front runner for the majority leader’s job,and he told Chris Mathews on Hard Ball(MSNBC) that he got the vote…,things changed fast the last 48 for Hoyer. He is an AIPAC man,and will not hesitate to start war with Iran…. I agree with you.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:47 amI think I can help the discussion related with iranians and US troops regarding them:
January 26th, 2007 at 11:58 am
#68 what was objected to was not objected to because it showed anyone in an incorrect light, it was objected to be cause it showed them in a false light. Either way anyone who sees Path to 911 and takes it as fact is probably one of the 30%’ers. The movie writer even said that his goal was to make Bush look good and Clinton look bad. Not in so many words, but that is exactly what he implied. Thhe right seems to be all over showing this movie, but as with fillibusters they are utter hypocrites. They absoulutely did nto want the Reagan movie run because of one line of dialog. Of course that one linne of dialoge was taken from a biography on Regan, still they did nto want it shown because Saint Ronnie should be treated better than that.
But leaving the hypocracy behind all on has to to is to Step back and look at 911 in the context of what we know today. It is so extremely damaging to the Bush administration that I am surprised people don’t put two and two together more often. Now after 6 years of incompetence, after 6 years of negligence, after 6 years of every decision being made for ideological reasons after seeing bungled policy after bungled policy rolled out and failing it should be obvious to all that 911 occurred on the Bush watch because of their incompetence.
January 26th, 2007 at 12:00 pmMark,
Yes, showed Clinton in false light. Star Wars shows space travel in a false light too. So, it should not be shown.
For the record, I was against those that did not want the Regan movie ran, too.
Show it and let the people decide. Both of them. If it is the 30%ers that would believe that PT 9/11 was factual, then tht is still an extreme minority.
January 26th, 2007 at 12:13 pmHacker Bob, like many Bush cultists, has a very selective memory. Just a few years ago, CBS was going to air a “docudrama” about the Reagan presidency. There was one scene where Reagan said that AIDS could be god’s retribution for the gay lifestyle. Conservatives went nuts. They claimed Reagan never said anything of the sort. Under relentless pressure from the right, the docudrama was pulled and never shown on broadcast television. It ended up on Showtime.
Bush cultists specialize in double-standards.
January 26th, 2007 at 12:16 pmBob, the point is that the Reagan movie was not allowed to air on broadcast television. What are you doing here anyway? Why are you sitting there furiously typing things that provoke anger among people on this site? Don’t you have anything more constructive to do than repeat tired old conservative dogma here among people who would like to discuss progressive issues in a civil manner? Do you think you’re going to change any minds with your fact-challenged nonsense? You’re just a typical Bush-cultist a-hole, that’s all you are. If someone gives you a fact, you dismiss it and continue with your dogma. We’ve all heard it before. It’s tired. It’s old. It’s out of step with the vast majority of American opinion. Just go over to Little Green Footballs or National Review or FreeRepublic and join their circle jerk. That’s where you belong. I’m just sick of cowardly, sociopathic, unamerican cultists like you stinking up these conversations. You’re bad news. Get the f*ck outta here!
January 26th, 2007 at 12:22 pmThe White House has “authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranians who are believed to be working with Iraqi militias,†a shift from an old policy of detaining Iranians “and then releasing them after a few days, which the Bush administration felt didn’t go far enough.â€
so now he wants to kill them and then let them go ….MMMM NOT NICE AT ALL
January 26th, 2007 at 12:23 pmComment by Bluedog49
I guess you didn’t read my post #95 where I say I was against the Regan docudrama being pulled as well. So it is not a double standard at all. Show the one about Regan, Show the scenes about Clinton. Guess what, Neither of them are running for public office and one is dead. IT IS FICTION or at least SEMI-FICTION.
January 26th, 2007 at 12:27 pmBluedog,
You don’t like my opinion so I should go elsewere? Ok, I think that fox has the right to show the deleted scenes. Big deal.
If the only people here were the ones that agree with each other it would be boaring, don’t you think? I actually agree with people here sometimes, too. But not always.
You say I dismiss facts? Maybe sometimes. But other people here dismiss facts here too. It happens.
You ask what I am doing here. Well, with you and DNFP, argueing. With others, debating and discussing things. Exchanging ideas. Communicating. The very thing the internet was designed for.
Oh, yeah, excercising my right to free speach as well. Almost forgot.
January 26th, 2007 at 12:34 pm#95 Bob, but star wars is based ina galaxey far far away none of the characters are real people. Path to 911 however has real names real people and the sad part is that the 30% believes it to be fact. Like I said simply observing the last six years should open everyone’s eyes that the incomeptance of Bush’s adminsitration on just about everything else (winning elections is the exception) their incompetance should allow us to connnect the dots. They didn’t suddently become incompetant, they have always been incompetant, it just ook people too long to figure it out. The incompetance started on day one annd reached it’s apex on 911. It just took people another 4 years, and cost America a whole ciity, to figure out the depth of their incomeptance.
January 26th, 2007 at 12:59 pmBob,
I think showing cut scenes from a docu-drama, on a suppposed news channel is in poor taste at the very least. If CNN did something similar, I can only imagine the mad howling from the right. Fox is supposed to be news. Showing made up scenes from a docu drama is not news. News is supposed to be factual, not spun to show a positive or negative light.
January 26th, 2007 at 1:02 pmWASHINGTON (CNN) — The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to capture or kill Iranian agents in Iraq who are plotting attacks against U.S. and coalition forces, a U.S. national security official said Friday.
AMERICA KILLS ANYBODY ANYWAY SO
January 26th, 2007 at 1:09 pmRobert, you are taking a lot of shit.
I dont want to shot my part to you as well, but you say you dismiss facts sometimes. Why would you do that? Dont you think thats very medieval? Dont you think you are saying that you willingly step aside from facts and just throw your opinion around becuz you just dismissed facts? If you willingly dismiss facts nobody is going to believe what you say, cuz its your opinion and nothing more. In all the posts about iranians and US troops you go around the main point of the discussion which is that US is provoking a conflict with Iran, and argue that if you are shot you will fire back…well, thats nonesense. No one here is gonna dispute that. Then you go with the iraqis are allowed to have guns. Well, then just bomb every single home. The thing is that you dont discuss whats important, you go by semantics, you go by your opinions, you go by dismissing facts.
I havent read a post of yours condemning this illegal, immoral occupation. You get angry about some comments attacking US troops that kill civilians, but you never expressed with the same anger the loss of 600,000 unarmed civilians: people who were not trained, who didnt volunteer, who werent asked if they wanted this. Not a word from you. Thats hypocresy. Its like everybody (including me) remembers 6 millions of jewish people killed by Nazis, but nobody gives a f*ck about the 17 million russians Hitler killed. Cuz russians were bad, I guess.
Ive read that you once complained about a “racist” remark again white people that big papa posted in a past thread. Cuz thats really important, that the white men dont feel like they are being discriminated.
January 26th, 2007 at 1:14 pmComment by Krazny
I agree with most of your point. But if a show is an opinion show then that is the exception.
Anyone that thinks that Fox OR CNN are hard acurate news channels needs a wake up. They are a group of opinion shows with news blurbs in between.
January 26th, 2007 at 1:15 pmI’ve seen the promos for the thing on Sunday and they use the words “Fiction†and Docu-Dramaâ€. Sounds like they are not trying to pass it off as fact to me.
Comment by hacker bob
snort… images will always get paid more attention to that words… and besides… i imagine a high percentage of fox viewers are illiterate, and even less likely know what “docu-drama” means. heck, half of them are so stupid they probably think “fiction” just means “its a real story being re-enacted by pretend politicians”
January 26th, 2007 at 1:15 pmI dont want to shot my part to you as well, but you say you dismiss facts sometimes. Why would you do that? Dont you think thats very medieval?
Sometimes we all dismiss facts when we are caught by emotion. It is not a willful act.
In all the posts about iranians and US troops you go around the main point of the discussion which is that US is provoking a conflict with Iran
OK, Juan, let me ask this. If Iranians are helping the Iraqi Malitias kill US troops, who is provoking a fight?
Then you go with the iraqis are allowed to have guns
I say this as a way to show tht we are not, under the current ROE, just shooting everyone that has a weapon. Only those that are trying to use them against us.
I havent read a post of yours condemning this illegal, immoral occupation.
I have said many times I question the MORALITY of the occupation. I can not condemn it for being illegal if it is not. The Congress and the UN have not said it is illegal.
but you never expressed with the same anger the loss of 600,000 unarmed civilians
I have said many times in the past that anyone the knowingly and willingly kills an innocent should face the harsest punishments. How come I never hear you condemn the Iraqis that kill other Iraqis? You only condemn the US forces.
Ive read that you once complained about a “racist†remark again white people that big papa posted in a past thread. Cuz thats really important, that the white men dont feel like they are being discriminated.
Actually, it is important that NO ONE feel discriminated against. How can you denounce racism while using racist statements?
January 26th, 2007 at 1:28 pmSorry bib, but you are incorrect about CNN. Are they correct 100% of the time? No, do they have lots of comentary type shows? Yes. However their comentary types go both ways and soem sit in the middle. Fox on the other hand, if their news programers say it is 6:00pm I check my watch to verify. They ALWAYS slant the news towards the right. Fox is also full of opinion type shows, noen of which are left leaning or present from the middle…none. Why do you think it is the only station Cheney will watch? It says what he wants to hear. The interviewers lob softball questions and don’t press when the answers are messed up. It is the media arm of the republican party, period. While with CNN youmay not agree with them, but they are in no way shape or form tied to the democratIC party.
January 26th, 2007 at 1:30 pmActually Bob, according to what I have read, and I need to say that I don’t read the Washington Times, New York Post or other rightwing news rags or mags, the troops on the ground have found little in the way of Iranian involvement. They have found or captured few weapons, of course weapons being used originate everywhere including the US, GB and many other western nations. The generals on the ground, whom the president claims to listen to, have consistently said that the number of foreign fighters has been about 5% all along. They have not been interdicting arms moving across the borders from Iran. As of right now there is little other than presidential rhetoric linking the Iranians and the insurgency. I personally have no doubts that the administration wants war with Iran and are going to try and cook the books of public opinion. It goes with their PNAC philosophy.
I wonder if we are also making the same threats against the Saudis who have publicly said that they will fund the Sunni in Iraq? That is not presidential rhetoric, that is recorded fact.
Side note, over lunch CNN was running a report on Pakistan. Now remember we invaded Iraq because we wanted to forestall a terrorist threat before it developed based on the incorrect assumption that Iraq was harboring Al Queda and was or would become a haven for their training. This report at lunch time was about all of the Al Queda training camps operating within the borders of Pakistan. Now correct me if I am wrong, but Pakistan is supposed to be our ally. Pakistan is harboring Al Queda. Pakistan will not let us operate in their country. Pakistan had more people involved in 911 than Iraq did. Pakistan is ruled by a military dictator. Pakistan is known to have WMD. Pakistan is known to have spread the technological know how on making WMD to rouge nations. OK A whole bunch of things that we said made us fear Iraq are also present in Pakistan, why is the president not waving his saber at Pakistan? Heck if we went ape shit on them, India would join in and as an ally they have a much larger military than any other ally has.
January 26th, 2007 at 1:53 pmAre they correct 100% of the time?
OOPS, there went 100%.
I did not say they (CNN) were tied to either party. Some call them left wing and others right wing. I said they were opinion shows with news blurbs in between.
January 26th, 2007 at 1:56 pmHacker Bob, if you WERE here to “exchange ideas” I would feel completely different about your participation. But in the past few days, you have demonstrated the opposite to me. You re-stated tired old conservative christian dogma about abortion. I asked you repeatedly if you thought the government should be in the business of forcing women to carry babies to term against their will and you pretended over and over not to notice. You re-stated tired old conservative dogma about the minimum wage. I pointed you towards recent data showing states with higher minimum wages enjoyed better economies and you pretended over and over not to notice. Now, you’re pretending that there is nothing wrong with showing discredited propaganda which tortures the facts to make a case that Clinton was responsible for 9-11 but you have no problem with the fact that people like Michael Moore don’t get on television at all. You’re just pure bullshit. That’s why I feel the way I do. This is not about “free speech” or “sharing ideas.” This is about pure bullshit stinking up these boards.
January 26th, 2007 at 2:01 pmthe troops on the ground have found little in the way of Iranian involvement.
Agreed
They have found or captured few weapons, of course weapons being used originate everywhere including the US, GB and many other western nations
Agreed, including Katyusha rockets from Iran in Basra and Fallujah.
The generals on the ground, whom the president claims to listen to, have consistently said that the number of foreign fighters has been about 5% all along
Agreed
They have not been interdicting arms moving across the borders from Iran.
Again, Katyusha rockets. The only ones in the region that have those are Iran.
As of right now there is little other than presidential rhetoric linking the Iranians and the insurgency
Agreed
January 26th, 2007 at 2:04 pmBob, you seem to be saying that you agree that Bush has been lying through his teeth about conditions in Iraq. Yet, you support Bush. How can you support a president who lies to the American people about a shooting war?
January 26th, 2007 at 2:10 pmHacker Bob, if you WERE here to “exchange ideas†I would feel completely different about your participation. But in the past few days, you have demonstrated the opposite to me. You re-stated tired old conservative christian dogma about abortion.
I asked you repeatedly if you thought the government should be in the business of forcing women to carry babies to term against their will and you pretended over and over not to notice.
Only late term abortion. And I voiced my opinion and left religion out of it completely. But you probably missed that. When you are qualified to tell me when life actually begins, scientifically, you may be able to change my opinion.
You re-stated tired old conservative dogma about the minimum wage. I pointed you towards recent data showing states with higher minimum wages enjoyed better economies and you pretended over and over not to notice.
Wow, I didn’t think I commented on minimum wage. Sorry. I’ll go back and check.
Now, you’re pretending that there is nothing wrong with showing discredited propaganda which tortures the facts to make a case that Clinton was responsible for 9-11 but you have no problem with the fact that people like Michael Moore don’t get on television at all.
I could care less if Moore is on TV or not. That is not MY decision to make. That is a decision that the networks have to make. Personally, go ahead and put it on TV. If I do not want to watch it, I will change the channel. I actually wish they would run F 9/11 on TV so my wife would watch it. What I do NOT need is a politician telling me what I can or can not watch on TV, or listen to on the radio. I do NOT need a politician to tell me the kinds of books I can read or write. And that is exactally the kind of thing Clinton did, in my opinion. He silenced a voice he did not like so no one would question his image. When politicians tell you what you can see, hear, read, and write, they are telling you what to think.
You’re just pure bullshit. That’s why I feel the way I do. This is not about “free speech†or “sharing ideas.†This is about pure bullshit stinking up these boards.
Comment by Bluedog49
You can have your opinion, and I thank you for being forceful yet respectful. Some will agree with you. Some won’t. That is the great thing about opinions, we can all have one.
January 26th, 2007 at 2:17 pmBob, you seem to be saying that you agree that Bush has been lying through his teeth about conditions in Iraq. Yet, you support Bush. How can you support a president who lies to the American people about a shooting war?
Comment by Bluedog49
Umm, where did I say I support Bush?
You must have missed the day that Art 88 of the UCMJ was explained to me by the Staff Judge Advocate as applying only to Commissioned Officers. The first thing I said after that was “Oh my God will someone stop him before he kills us all. Bush is a fu*king idiot” or something like that. In fact, Juan C might know as it ws in a post to him.
January 26th, 2007 at 2:20 pmBob: “When you are qualified to tell me when life actually begins, scientifically, you may be able to change my opinion.”
What I’ve been trying to get across to you is that the question of when life begins is besides the point. I want to know if people are for or against the government forcing women to carry babies to term against their will. That is the real-world question that opponents of the right to an abortion want to ignore. Do you, Hacker Bob, agree that it is the proper function of our government to force women to carry babies to term against their will? I have never seen any abortion opponent answer that question. If you answer it in any way, you will be the first to do it.
January 26th, 2007 at 2:27 pmWhoops did I ever say CNN was correct 100% of the time? I said no they are not.
Anyhow, lets see soviet/Russian made ordinance. Hmmm who in the mid-east has been a client of the Soviet arms industry? Syria, Egypt, IRAQ. There are three possible countries of origin. Now add to that many of the old Soviet republics who have sympathies with Shiite or Sunnis. The source of those rockets is well, just about anyone. Most likely they are stores remaining from unguarded Iraqi arms and remember these are things that can be made fairly easily. But the link you posted mentions RPG’s and one other interesting thing I will come back to, Against RPG’s are available almost anywhere on the arms market.
If the Sunnis are using the ordinance chances are they got it in Iraq from Iraqi stores left unguarded after the invasion. If they got them after the invasion, chances are they were purchased by the Saudis. Think about who the most notorious arms dealers in the world are, they sell to anybody willing to meet their price and they helped arrange the whole Iran/Contra arms for hostages deal. The Shiites may very well have gotten their arms from Iraqi stores or from Iran. But right now there is no proof of origin. They certainly did not get their arms from Sunni Al Queda though the Sunni insurrection may very well have gotten some from AQ.
Know, back to what I said I would return to. Early on the British noticed that the IED’s they were encountering seemed to be very familiar to them. Their construction, deployment and means of firing seemed very much like what they had encountered in Northern Ireland. The Brits, and this was front page BBC website a year ago or so, are convinced that the Iraqi’s either had IRA people training them on site or that the IRA had effected a technology transfer to the Iraqi’s somehow. Those ties seem much more direct than the Iranian connection. Should we invade Northern Ireland or Ireland if they are found to be harboring the bomb makers?
Bob you have not directly said you support Bush, nice job of exercising plausible denyability, however you seem to be defending the adminsitrations discussed positions without fail.
January 26th, 2007 at 2:31 pmDo you, Hacker Bob, agree that it is the proper function of our government to force women to carry babies to term against their will? I have never seen any abortion opponent answer that question.
Let me be the first to answer this for you.
NO, that is not a proper function for the government.
Now, let me ask you:
Do you think it is the proper function of our government to allow a person to take the life of another person as a matter of conveniance?
January 26th, 2007 at 2:33 pmWhoops did I ever say CNN was correct 100% of the time? I said no they are not.
Sorry, I mis-read somthing.
If we find IRA aiding the insurgents, then the kill or capture rule applies. Just like it did to the Checnians we found, and the Jordanians.
But I agree tht Bush is pushing it with Iran. And Iran is pushing it with us. Ahmadinejad and Bush are poking each other in the chest trying to see who will flinch first.
Bob you have not directly said you support Bush, nice job of exercising plausible denyability, however you seem to be defending the adminsitrations discussed positions without fail.
What I defend is our service members right to protect themselves over there. Anything that helps that, I am all for. I would rather see our service members here, but no one is making that happen.
January 26th, 2007 at 2:40 pmWhether or not it’s another person is open to debate. From a scientific perspective there isn’t “another person” until separation from the mother. Before that, we’re talking about something attached to a woman’s body. From a religious perspective, life begins at first breath (Genesis). And, I completely disagree with your characterization of it being “a matter of convenience.” If you knew thing one about women, you would know that this is a painful, heartbreaking experience for the vast majority of those who have to endure it.
It’s a good question though. Thanks. But, if you don’t think government has the right to force a woman to carry a baby to term, the entire argument about whether of not a woman should have the right to choose one is a moot point. That is, what are we going to do about it? Nothing.
January 26th, 2007 at 2:50 pmhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=y6q780vKSfY
Funny!
January 26th, 2007 at 3:12 pmWhether or not it’s another person is open to debate.
Agreed, but in a debate as serious as this, would the wise not err on the side of caution?
Before that, we’re talking about something attached to a woman’s body.
Yes, but at a certain point it is able to sustain life outside of the body. That is where my “sticking point” is.
From a religious perspective, life begins at first breath (Genesis).
I have tried to avoid the religious aspect of the arguement, but with tthat said 1) the Bible is not ment to be interpreted as a literal work. aome of this site have pointed that out. Unbelievable is one of them. 2) does the baby/fetus not breath in the womb? It also crys in the womb.
If you knew thing one about women, you would know that this is a painful, heartbreaking experience for the vast majority of those who have to endure it.
I understand this as I have been down this road with an ex-girlfriend when I was young and stupid.
But, if you don’t think government has the right to force a woman to carry a baby to term, the entire argument about whether of not a woman should have the right to choose one is a moot point. That is, what are we going to do about it? Nothing.
Comment by Bluedog49
First, I have said repeatedly that I am not calling for the practice to be illegal as a whole. I disagree with it in the late term. You can not say that a person can have an abortion in the 8th month and it is fine, but then charge a man with 2 murders when he kills his pregnant wife and the baby dies too.
January 26th, 2007 at 3:13 pmBut I agree tht Bush is pushing it with Iran. And Iran is pushing it with us. Ahmadinejad and Bush are poking each other in the chest trying to see who will flinch first.
Comment by hacker bob
The only difference is that there are no carriers near Brownsville.
January 26th, 2007 at 3:32 pmThe only difference is that there are no carriers near Brownsville.
Comment by Juan C
Well SOMEONE needs to quit pokin’ if they ain’t got a big enough stick.
January 26th, 2007 at 3:46 pmLIBERALS HATE TRUTH
Liberals never let facts get in the way of a good argument. That is just one of the undeniable truths of life that must be accepted by all conservatives. A recent posting on this web site from a chronic Bush hater called “bushisacrook†offers up W’s “resume†and accomplishments as president. Unfortunately this posting was full of lies and half truths, witch is the typical basis for a liberal arguments. It would take to much space to address them all individually,
GEORGE W. BUSH RESUME
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
1. I attacked and took over two countries. Yes, this is what Bush did. Without being provoked, George Bush took it upon himself to attack and take over two countries….and we would like to apologize to Canada and Mexico.
2. I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the Treasury.
I shattered the record for biggest annual deficit in history.
I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 2-month period. I set the all-time record for the most foreclosures in a 12-month period. I set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market. Hey, did you hear? We’re bankrupt. I guess the Wall Street Journal missed that story, and for the record, the deficit, as a percentage of GDP, which is the only important measuring stick, is still lower than it’s been in decades. (It’s called Economics 101. Take it. Learn It. Live It.) It is an economic fact that George Bush inherited a U.S. economy that was stalling and beginning to tumble and had to deal with a world that was in a death spiral from Germany to Japan. Then 9/11 wreaked havoc on the the economic center of the universe….All in all, I’d say Bush has done a pretty good job protecting us from a Carter-like malaise.
3. In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history. After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the worst security failure in US history. Any third grader probably understands that a president, never has a vacation. Ever. All they do is move the headquarters for the running of the free world from one location to another. If you call having constant, 24 hour, security presence and daily briefings from everyone who works for you a vacation, then you’re right. ( What a bullshit complaint. I probably shouldn’t even have acknowledged it.)
4. In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs.
I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history. See Economy 101. And for the record, in the last 8 months nearly 1.5 million new jobs have been created, thanks to Bush tax cuts and economic policy.
5. I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any other president in US history. After Economics 101, check out Civics 102. Amending the constituion requires a super majority vote of both houses of congress, then ratification by the legislative branches of two thirds of the states. It’s a little harder than just a pen stroke.
6. I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed. I presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have. Are you starting to understand why school vouchers are so important. Apparently the person who posted this was not alive when Jimmy Carter was president. I remember gas rationing and the “odd/even†method of being told what day you could buy gas. If Bush would have emptied the national oil reserves the day he took office, it would be making it to the pump right about now….but then again, you’d have to understand a little bit about how the oil industry works to get it.
7. I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. It’s good to be the king.
8. I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history. Thank you. And would the jackasses who kept us in those outdated, irrelevant treaties please stand up.
9. I’ve made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history. How do you know? I mean, wouldn’t the most secret and unaccountable presidency, still be a secret….and unaccountable?
10. I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt. Again, the Wall Street Journal must be sleeping on the job to miss this one.
11. I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world. No, that would be Bill Clinton. On two counts. The Enron and World Com debacles were at fever pitch under Clinton….and do you recall under which administration Ken Lay and all his ilk were exposed and prosecuted?…..
12. I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the world community. Okay take Economics first period, Civics second period and American History third period. We’ll leave the schedule open after lunch.
13. I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant. The United Nations rendered itself irrelevant by failing to do what it said it would and then actively try to thwart enforcement of it’s own directives. By the way, you should also do some reading on the Oil For Food scandal that receives virtually no media attention in this country. The reason the U.N. fought against invading Iraq is because so many U.N. officials and world leaders were making so much money off Sadam being in power, to lose it would be unthinkable.
At this point I’m just tired. If there were at least some factual basis to the remaining claims made by this crazed Bush hater I might enjoy the debate, but when an argument is based on lies, ignorance and willful distortion…there is no debate. In fact, there is nothing worthy of debate, a point I prove with a final challenge.
Our visitor wrote; In a little over two years I have created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided that the US has been since the civil war. This is from the same write who called Bush a liar, a crook, a drunk, a deserter, a murderer and a moron. Who’s dividing the country?
January 26th, 2007 at 4:07 pmOne more thing about weaponry over there. The new Iraqi army is being traiined with…you guessed it Soviet equipment. My buddy who went was training them on shooting the AK. Pretty much one magazine was it, nothing like BRM week in the Army. So one other possibility is that whena katyusha or RPG lands in the mids of our troops thhere is a very realistic possibility that it is coming from an Iraqi soldier.
January 26th, 2007 at 4:49 pm#126, you are right. That is not a far reach at all.
January 26th, 2007 at 6:07 pmAgain, Katyusha rockets. The only ones in the region that have those are Iran.
Comment by hacker bob — January 26, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
Just a second here. The only country to manufacture them in large scale is Iran, but it is not the only one “in the region” to make rockets. The beauty about these Russian-designed weapons is that they are cheap and relatively easy to copy and make (I am thinking of the AK-47 as well). Hamas is reported to have acquired the know-how to make Katyushas (as an aside, I have to notice how consistently people underestimate the ingenuity of their opponents. Iraqis in this case).
Also, short-range rockets have been manufactured and used throughout the Middle East for years now, most notably the Qassam which is “home made”. And let’s not forget the rocket attack on the Baghdad hotel where then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowtiz was staying, or the rocket attack on a presidential palace in Baghdad reported back in 2000, or that the Iraqi army had rockets prior to the invasion.
In brief, what I gather is that 1) the term “Katyusha” is used a little arbitrarily by the media: It can refer to any short to mid-range rocket regardless of its actual design and technical specifications, 2) rockets were present in Iraq prior to the invasion, 3) American forces failed to secure weapon caches and it’s possible that’s where this new crop of “Katyushas” came from, 4) rockets are relatively easy to make -Iraqis could be making hem in the same place where they make the IEDs, and 5) the Bush administration is looking for an excuse to “hit” Iran.
January 26th, 2007 at 8:41 pmGregor,
Just FYI,
The Katyusha is an actual make/model name for a short range rocket developed by the Russian late in WWII. They were sold to many countries that the Russians were supporting, including Iran.
The Katyusha is short range rockets fired from a truck known as a MLRS (Multi-Rocket Launch System) and are not deigned as a “Defensive” weapon. It is not the kind of rocket you can just fire off of your shoulder. It requires a bit (not very) advanced launching system. But, they are PERFECT for “Hit and run” tactics.
That is about all I remember from learning about them in Boot Camp. That was 14 years ago.
Remember when we were supplying arms to Saddam to fight Iran. Russia was selling arms to Iran to fight Saddam. Katyusha rocket are one of Iran’s mainstays after the proxy war.
And no, I do not under estimate the Iraqis at all. They are a society that was studying Astronomy, Law, and Architecture while most of the world was still wearing animal hides.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:52 pmDo you think it is the proper function of our government to allow a person to take the life of another person as a matter of conveniance?
a clump of cells too small to be seen the with the naked eye is not a “person”.
people have eyes, ears, lungs, consciouness, memories,emotions, the ability to feel pain, etc etc.
it truly demeans what it means to be human to try to reduce “personhood” to the simple formula of unaware organic matter.
If your idiot bretheren wouldnt fight it every step of the way, the vast majority of unwanted preganancies could either be prevented totally, or ended before the organism growing inside the woman had any traits you could consider human.
so your saying a person is a person from the moment of conception, so fertility clinics are committing mass murder by throwing ununsed embryos away right? they are as bad as nazi’s right?
it amazes me that you guys freak out about killing something that has no awareness of its own existence, yet maiming and putting real living children with families through the excrutiating mental and physcial pain of war injuries is something you do at the drop of a hat.
I don’t dispute that closer to birth, the “its a person” argument begins to become more compelling. however, the early stages of a pregnancy, the argument is nonsensical…
lets be honest, what you bimblehumpers are really worrying about is controlling women’s sexuality, because women’s sexuality is a threat to the societal control monotheistic religion creates. if you were really worried about “the children”, you woulndt fight every possible oppotunity to prevent anything remotely resembling a child from coming into this world if its not wanted, and you wouldnt abandon those children to a lifetime of misery because the only reason they were born is because mommy wasnt allowed to nullify their existance before it began… when every child is born into a world where they have at least one person who can care for them and loves them, then i’ll start listnening to your argument that boils down to “there should be more unwanted children in this world”
January 26th, 2007 at 11:34 pmTest
January 27th, 2007 at 12:23 amMy response to Bob is been “eaten” by the spam filter…
::sigh::
January 27th, 2007 at 12:36 amBob,
(short version)
I am no military expert but do know what a Katyusha is.
My point was that the rockets found recently in Iraq may not be actual Katyushas, but some other type of rocket since reporters do not seem to know the difference. And even if they are, they could be “home made” -the technology is well known and they do not require highly specialised premises for their manufacture.
January 27th, 2007 at 12:39 amBob,
I am trying to say that it is reporters who do not know one type of rocket from another… who knows what is really being found in Iraq or where it was made…
January 27th, 2007 at 12:47 amComment by Whitey HermAphrodite
1) I am not a bible thumper.
2) I never said to outlaw abortion as a whole.
3) at 6months in the womb, the baby can cry, breaths embrionic fluid, has eyes, ears, lungs, and can feel pain. So, even by your definition, it is a person.
January 27th, 2007 at 10:38 amI am trying to say that it is reporters who do not know one type of rocket from another… who knows what is really being found in Iraq or where it was made…
Comment by Gregor Samsa
It is not the reporters I am talking about. It is the US/UK troops that report them I am talking about.
I know I am at a little of an intelligence advantage because of my occupation. But they are Katyusha rockets I am talking about, not some garage made version.
January 27th, 2007 at 10:41 am