57:
By on Feb 5th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
57:
Percentage of Americans who say it is likely that the United States will be at war with Iran before another year goes by.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
And while the Republicans in the Senate block a debate on a non-binding resolution to oppose Bush’s escalation, more Americans are getting blown up or shot to death.
97 American Soldiers have died since the Republicans became the Minority Party and began their obstructionist tactics.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:29 pm30 Percent said with glee with fervant and zealot delusions of rapture.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:30 pmand major props to woof blitzer, lou dobbs and all the war pimps at cnn who just can’t wait for round two of shock and awe. they’ve contributed greatly to softening up the public when chimpy unleashes those tactical nukes. gotta do something to boost those ratings….
February 5th, 2007 at 3:35 pmUnless congress refuses funding, or refused to authorize an AUMF, we most likely will be.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:53 pmThat 57 percent could be right.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:54 pmYou know, Iran has an actual ARMY, not the rag-tag bunch that was in Iraq that crumbled at the onset. If this madman is allowed to extend the war to Iran our troops are going to get their asses kicked (not their fault they’re exhausted and over-extended) and Chimpy McFlightsuit will have to re-instate the draft.
Impeach now and save America!!
February 5th, 2007 at 3:56 pmGood job Think Progress, looks like your constant shrieks about the imminent war with Iran have helped brainwash half the public. It interests me that those who talk most about a war with Iran are… anti-Bush. It’s almost, almost, as if you’re trying to scare the public into believing a certain something.
So, tell me, how many years have the anti-Bush crowd been saying that Bush was lining up to invade Iran and Syria? Why, I do believe Scott Ritter was saying we’d bomb Iran in June 2005.
Why are the Democrats so intensely focused on preventing the Bush administration from doing something they have never expressed any intention of doing?
February 5th, 2007 at 3:57 pm97 American Soldiers have died since the Republicans became the Minority Party and began their obstructionist tactics.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
The Dems just putter and dither….
February 5th, 2007 at 4:04 pmSeixon,
you probably don’t get US news service to much in Norway, so I don’t expect you to know. In the US, a near constant drumbeat of Iran is supplying weapons, Iran is __________, Iran is _______ etc has been coming out of the right wing noise machine. Couple that with extra deployments, of troops and carrier strike groups, and read the PNAC statements about wanting to control everything from Syria to Iran, what are we supposed to think?
You claim to be a free thinker, but rarely show those attributes, instead choosing to attack think progress, for unknown reasons.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:14 pmKrazny,
Seixon’s super-special obsession is TP. He’s an American living in Norway. He knows what goes on here. He just thinks he knows everything about all things, so that makes him special.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:19 pmI never figured him out Zoo, I think his obsessive need to be right is the driving force. No matter what you say to him, he will stick to his original story, and will say he is an independent minded person.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:24 pmSeixon & Exley would make a cute couple. :P
February 5th, 2007 at 4:27 pmYou know, Iran has an actual ARMY, not the rag-tag bunch that was in Iraq that crumbled at the onset. If this madman is allowed to extend the war to Iran our troops are going to get their asses kicked (not their fault they’re exhausted and over-extended) and Chimpy McFlightsuit will have to re-instate the draft.
Impeach now and save America!!
Comment by KikiD — February 5, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
Actually, from a professional standpoint and a technology standpoint, the Iraqi army was considered the best in the region before Bush Sr attacked. The problem with Iran is that the officer corp is chosen for their loyalty rather than their experience. Morale-wise, I’m sure Iran has the advantage over Iraq, but during the Iran-Iraq war, neither side had a clear advantage. Since then, the Hussein focussed more on the republican guard whereas Iran’s military has been through a couple of purges to rid them of undesirables. That messes with their organization and their morale in combat. I think they will stand and fight where the Iraqi’s didn’t, but I don’t see them as capable of going toe-to-toe with the US Army and surviving more than a brief and spectacular period.
That having been said, Bush is an idiot, and if the Iranians are smart they WON’T fight the US military. They’ll do exactly what the ‘insurgents’ are doing in Iraq and grind us down. If they do that, we’ve pretty much lost. We don’t have a very good track record dealing with that sort of thing and out propaganda arm has proven itself pretty much useless.
If we attack Iran, we’ll win…. just like we ‘won’ in Iraq.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:36 pmNot if the rest of the world declares war on us first. After all, we’re the fear mongering aggressors here, not they.
February 5th, 2007 at 4:37 pm“Abandon hope all ye who enter here”. As on the Gates of Hell Dante’s inscription should be hanging at every port of entry to America. Because by the time the Bush regime has bankrupted the country and let loose anarchy on us all there will be hell….
February 5th, 2007 at 4:38 pmBTW: Just a note..
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
According to the AUMF, Bush’s invasion of Iraq is not quite illegal, since it’s legality is determined by what Bush says they did to cause or help 9/11 or the origonal perpetrators and since the Administration is ALREADY saying that Al-Queda is being kept alive with Iranian support, in Bush’s mind, no expansion or re-authorization is needed to invade Iran. By their reasoning, it is simply continuing the fight against Terror. Congress gave Bush a blank check when they took his leash off. The only way they can get it back is by refusing the budget (and causing a LOT of collateral damage in the process) or pass a resolution to REVOKE the Authorization, or get Bush to declare the War on Terror ended. Which scenario do YOU think is most likely?
February 5th, 2007 at 4:48 pmSpudge_Boy,
Can you put away the ad hominem? Thanks.
So tell me, did the members of PNAC send a letter to Clinton in 1998 urging him to take action against Iran? No, was just Iraq was it? Can you find a single member of PNAC that has advocated invading or attacking Iran unconditionally? Did you ever read the “original” AUMF, or did you take Hagel’s word for it because you wanted to believe?
Bush stated in the beginning of 2002 that he wanted to remove Saddam Hussein. Has Bush stated anything similar to Iran? No, in 6 years, he has not. The Bush administration has continually talked to the Iranian people in supporting them in the aims of regime change.
Krazny,
Apparently you’ve never heard of the Internets. I’m watching C-SPAN right now. The US dominates the Norwegian news. I have CNN, BBC, and Sky News, among others, on something called digital cable. Ever heard of it? The digital revolution is really groovy, you should get in on this.
You’re right. The news media has been talking a whole lot about Iran, Seymour Hersh writes an article about an imminent attack on Iran about every 6 months, as has done so since about 2004. Larry Johnson and his friends in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity have talked about the impending attacks coming on Iran for years. Scott Ritter, no friend of the Bush administration, claimed back in the beginning of 2005 that we’d bomb them in June 2005. Larisa Alexadrovna of Raw Story wrote an article just a little while ago shrieking about an incoming bombing raid on Iran.
The only thing missing is the Bush administration saying anything of the sort. The only thing the Bush administration has said in regards to Iran is (1) that they are working with the UN to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and (2) that Iran is meddling in Iraq, which the recent NIE also stated.
Another source that hypes an impending attack on Iran often: Think Progress. It’s not the rightwing noise machine doing it, it’s your own Democratic and left-wing media that is doing it. The Democrats in Congress have been harassing Bush about not attacking Iran, even though he’s never even talked about it or given an indication that he wants to. It’s the Left that is preoccupied with a supposed attack on Iran. They’ve got you so brainwashed that you don’t even realize it.
Go back and check all the times that Think Progress has linked to articles about the supposed plans for attacking/invading Iran. These claims are not coming from the Bush administration – they are coming from the likes of Wayne White and Sam Gardiner, people who are against Bush. You don’t know the beginning of what being a free thinker is, as your hopeless response shows.
Go back and read all the articles about the supposed plans to invade Iran – who sources all of them? Anti-Bush sources. So you’ve got to ask yourself, why do anti-Bush sources keep flogging an incoming attack on Iran, one that seems to never come??
February 5th, 2007 at 4:55 pmBush didn’t include Iran in his “Axis of Evil”?
Please Seixon, for your mental health say off the blog. You are already worked into a tizzy, and have only posted twice.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:00 pmWhy are the Democrats so intensely focused on preventing the Bush administration from doing something they have never expressed any intention of doing?
Comment by TheSeixon
Because they HAVE expressed it, their supporters have expressed it, and they are proven conniving liars. They have shown themselves to be no different from all the rest of human leaders throughout history that have conspired to wage war.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:02 pm#20- How much does the GOP pay you to clickity-clack on your keyboard? Do they buy your crystal meth, too?
February 5th, 2007 at 5:06 pmComment by TheSeixon
You must have missed the Axis of Evil speech…
February 5th, 2007 at 5:07 pmOy.
Now we’re back to the epic Seixon comments.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:08 pmKrazny,
He included North Korea in his Axis of Evil too. Are we about to invade/bomb North Korea too? No? Oh, well there your argument went again, gone with the wind. I know you’d like me to leave, because I challenge you to think, something you don’t like.
Gerald,
Please show me a single time that the Bush administration expressed intent to invade/attack Iran. Thanks.
#23,
Oh, wow, the “you’re paid by the GOP to post comments” shtick. Where have I heard that before? Ah yes, about a million times here at Think Progress. Keep being “original”, you’ll make it to the comedy club one of these days, I just know it.
Zooey,
If by “epic” you mean filled with information, facts, substance, then yes. I don’t engage in “oh yea, well you must be paid by Nazis” comments like you and your friends.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:16 pmNorth Korea lacks Oil
February 5th, 2007 at 5:21 pmIt took about eight months for W to deploy the troops for the Iraqi invasion in 2003. They are mostly in place in Iraq right now for the Iran invasion. I can not figure out which carrier he plans to take out in the false flag operation, but he will do that or worse. Stationing multiple carriers in the Persian Gulf is more insane than invading Iraq. Is W not aware that we have boomers that can deliver either conventional or nuclear weapons in the area? On top of that the carrier task forces can be just as effective if they were stationed in the Indian Ocean.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:24 pmSeixon; you’re missing the point. IF Bush Co has any intention of attacking Iran, he would have to be doing exactly what he’s doing right now. He may be planning an invasion of Iran, or he may not. Bush lies so much, we’d never know. What I DO know is that legally, if he’s not being impeached or blocked from continuing his attacks on Iraq, then he has just as much authority ALREADY to attack Iran. No, we may not be planning an invasion of Iran, but we’re seeing just about what we should be seeing if we were. This is NOT a good combination in my book.
The only thing that can stop him if he is planning an invasion is a congressional order, and I’d like everyone to entertain just for a moment a scenario where Bush does invade Iran. Then Congress says “enough is enough.” and signs a resolution to revoke the military authorization and point-blank orders Bush to bring our troops home. Now Bush is in a quandry. As far as his supporters are concerned, it would be a not-so outlandish statement to say “Bringing the troops home now would undermine our national security.” and to be fair it isn’t an outlandish argument, but that wont sway the people who signed the resolution to stop Bush. This quandry can be solved by doing something that (if done exactly the right way) be in line with what Bush sees as his rights and (barely) legal and keeps the troops in both Iran and Iraq…
Remember that little talked about change to the Posse Comitus Act that made it easier to declare Martial Law??? Make no mistake, if Bush thought he was right and his administration could construct an argument that was at least plausible (ie not obviously treasonous) he WOULD do it.
Then we’d have a dictator in everything but name and not much chance to do anything about it until election time next year, and it becomes a not-so radical idea that he could at least try to postpone the election “until we’re victorious”
Sure it’s crazy, but so is fighting an illegal war with no allies and making noises about adding one more mortal enemy. And… boy… funny how things turn out.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:26 pmknow you’d like me to leave, because I challenge you to think, something you don’t like.
Comment by TheSeixon — February 5, 2007 @ 5:16 p
I didn’t ask, I suggested. I don’t think your fragile ego can deal with the type of give and take present on this board.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:39 pmSpudge,
Bush stated that he wanted to attack Iraq long before 2002.
Now all you will have to do is provide proof. Thanks.
The origianl AUMF called for broad attacks across the Middle East.
Now all you will have to do is provide proof. Thanks.
You are a fu*king parrot and a retard. You have already been banned for your BS. So, fu*k you bitch.
My, my, my, is it getting hot in here? It would seem to me that you are parroting things you have read here at Think Progress. Why, I do believe Think Progress reported Chuck Hagel claiming that thing about the AUMF that you have been saying. It’s funny that you took the words of a Republican senator as the golden truth – without him having provided any evidence of what he said. Think Progress was equally mesmerized. I wonder why.
This is George W Bush declaring war on North Korea, Iraq and IRAN. Nimrod. THe entire country, ney, the entire world watched and heard this. It isn’t some left wing conspiracy. George W Bush really said this.
Apparently Iran and North Korea never got the memo that they had been declared war upon. Nor apparently did the UN get the memo. People like you have been believing in an attack on Iran since 2003. It’s almost been 4 years now. When’s it going to happen? Can ya tell me?
swordsbane,
So basically, you’re just leaning back on your opinion of Bush and phoning it in. I thought liberals loved the scientific method, and operating based on facts and evidence. Guess not.
Let me throw a little wrench into your seemingly paranoid mind: what would Bush be doing if he wasn’t planning to invade Iran?
Ah, that possibility doesn’t exist in your mind, now does it? You are engaging in circular reasoning to come to the conclusion you have predetermined to be correct without any basis in fact.
Again, I sense a whiff of unwarranted and politically convenient paranoia in the air.
People like you’ve been talking about the coming Fascist state for years now. When’s it going to come? Around the same time we invade Iran? Tick tock.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:39 pmSeixon: Wait. You’re telling me that Bush doesn’t lie about virtually everything to do with Iraq? If so, you’re already so far out of the real world, my ‘paranoia’ can’t touch it.
For the record, Bush has not bothered to change his strategy for the war in Iraq. He either believes, against the opinions of virtually everyone who should know what they’re talking about, that simply more troops is the answer or he has another goal in mind, so he’s either evil or stupid. Which is it?
February 5th, 2007 at 5:47 pmAnd aonther thing Seixon: Disagreeing with a conservative doesn’t make me a liberal. If you don’t even have the awareness to avoid that stupid assumption, please go away until you are a little further out of your shell.
February 5th, 2007 at 5:50 pm100% of Americans need to wrench our country out of the hands of these warmongers.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:03 pmZooey,
If by “epic†you mean filled with information, facts, substance, then yes. I don’t engage in “oh yea, well you must be paid by Nazis†comments like you and your friends.
Comment by TheSeixon
Little information other than insight into your ego problems, no facts, no substance — other than blah, blah, blah.
You have your own blog, stop whoring here, and go attend to it.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:04 pmswordsbane,
Seixon: Wait. You’re telling me that Bush doesn’t lie about virtually everything to do with Iraq? If so, you’re already so far out of the real world, my ‘paranoia’ can’t touch it.
Let me blow your mind: Yes, I am telling you that Bush doesn’t lie about virtually everything to do with Iraq. If you feel this is incorrect, please provide the evidence/proof that Bush does lie about virtually everything to do with Iraq.
What you mean to say is that he hasn’t withdrawn the troops, and therefore he must be evil, although all the intelligence agencies say that withdrawing would only make things much, much worse.
Whether or not it is wise to put more troops in there is not something there can be a Yes/No answer to without letting it play out. General Petraeus obviously believes that this strategy is the right way forward, and since I doubt either of us have any military experience, us debating whether or not that is the correct action to take is like us debating whether or not low cloud cover does or does not affect the global climate.
Bush has apparently seen what the intelligence agencies are telling him, that withdrawing will only make things much worse for everyone, so he is doing the opposite.
Well, since I’m not a conservative, I’m not sure what that makes you, or whether you realize you’ve made a “stupid assumption” as you claim I have. However, I have only experienced the type of delusional paranoia of the Bush administration you exhibit among left-wingers, liberals, and Democrats. The reason for this is that it is fomented by the left-wing in order to whip up irrational fear of Bush to get people to oppose him quite fiercely. It is the same tactic that Hitler used in his Germany, and it is the tactic that the right-wing also uses against those they call communists and left-wing traitors.
You’ll notice that I’m the only one being called a traitor here, and that you and the others are the ones exhibiting a paranoid view of the Bush administration. By those observations, I cannot conclude other than that you are definitely not a conservative, and most likely not a moderate/centrist such as myself, either. Moderates/centrists do not get caught up in delusional paranoia of one or the other party.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:04 pmSpudge,
You provided a link for the 2002 State of the Union. May I ask how that shows I am a traitor? I have provided facts, none of which you have disputed because you know they are facts.
The burden of proof is on me to prove I am not a traitor?
So what if I were to ask you to prove that you are not a traitor?
Prove that you’re not a Leprechaun in disguise.
Prove that you’re not an alien from a distant planet.
Prove that you’re not a Jew.
As you would say, “the burden of proof is on you”.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:08 pmZooey,
Aww, do you want me to leave so you can play in the echo chamber all alone? You guys are so pathetic. Every time I come, you attack me and ask me to leave. I can’t understand how you manage to live with yourselves.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:10 pmAww, do you want me to leave so you can play in the echo chamber all alone? You guys are so pathetic. Every time I come, you attack me and ask me to leave. I can’t understand how you manage to live with yourselves.
Comment by TheSeixon
Heh. I knew you lurked here. That’s unbelievably sad — and totally pathetic.
I’m sure being asked to leave is something that happens in your everyday life. Aren’t you used to it by now?
February 5th, 2007 at 6:19 pmLet me blow your mind: Yes, I am telling you that Bush doesn’t lie about virtually everything to do with Iraq. If you feel this is incorrect, please provide the evidence/proof that Bush does lie about virtually everything to do with Iraq.
Bush: “Hussein has ties to Al-Queda” No he didn’t. Hussein actively worked to keep Al-Queda out of his country.
Bush: “Liberating Iraq is vital to the war of terror” Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism until after we invaded. Bush also recanted his statement that Hussein had terrorist connections in a press conference when a reporter asked him what Iraq had to do with 9/11. Bush’s answer: “Nothing.” 9/11 and terrorism was the reason congress authorized Bush to attack Iraq. Since Iraq DIDN’T have anything to do with terrorism, Bush is either a liar or stupid.
“Mission Accomplished” A liar or stupid?
“Stay the course” Most military authorities and intelligence agencies “Even if they support the way say that our current strategy isn’t working. Liar or stupid?
all the intelligence agencies say that withdrawing would only make things much, much worse.
Umm… which ones would those be exactly. The Senate Intelligence Comittee (which is expressly for the purpose of collating intelligence and then advising both Congress and the President) says that a phased withdraw is our best option. I don’t know an intelligence organization that’s higher up on the food chain than that, and if they don’t know what they’re talking about, why do we have them?
Well, since I’m not a conservative, I’m not sure what that makes you, or whether you realize you’ve made a “stupid assumption†as you claim I have. However, I have only experienced the type of delusional paranoia of the Bush administration you exhibit among left-wingers, liberals, and Democrats.
I apologise. I was trying to say that I disagree with conservatives. I think they are at best, deluded and at worst, hippocrits. There is no party in the country that I feel comfortable endorsing.
You’ll notice that I’m the only one being called a traitor here
I never called you a traitor.
BTW: You’ll also notice I never said I thought we were headed for a facist state or that Bush was trying to take us there. I mentioned that I beleive we’re headed in the right direction to make it happen and gave what I thought was a reasonable scenario where it would de-facto happen. All along the way I’m sure Bush wouldn’t be saying to himself “I’ve almost got ALL the power bwahahahahaha.” but when he finds out he DOES have all the power… well that will be a pretty black day.
People are under the mistaken impression that we always have to have nefarious, megalomaniacle plots for democracies to turn into dictatorships. That is not the case. History has as many examples of a government and a people simply making a wrong turn somewhere as having a coup that changes a government deliberately. The larger a country get’s the more things change accidentally. I believe that is what COULD happen here, and we’re getting closer and closer to that no-turning back decision that has to be made by someone who’s in the right/wrong place at the right time. A year or two ago I would have thought anyone saying such things was also wearing tinfoil. Now….
Bush may be the guy who’s taking us for a ride or just fumbling around in the dark, but he doesn’t scare me as the potential presidential candidate taking notes on all the pieces that Bush is putting in place for him.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:24 pmUnfortunately I am one of that 57% who believe that Bush is insane enough, arrogant enough, and stubborn enough to involve us in Iran regardless of advice, suggestion, pressure and congressional action against it.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:32 pmI also apologise for the misspellings. I have a massive headache right now and can’t type straight to save my life. If this post is correct, it is purely by accident.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:34 pmUnfortunately I am one of that 57% who believe that Bush is insane enough, arrogant enough, and stubborn enough to involve us in Iran regardless of advice, suggestion, pressure and congressional action against it.
Comment by Marie — February 5, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
That’s the problem. In the scenario I mentioned where Bush declares martial law to continue the war, it isn’t a question of Bush trying to become a dictator or starting a civil war. He’ll just think he’s right and the rest of the country is wrong and see it as a way to vindicate himself. But his track record is that he doesn’t think through the consequences of what he does, and we’re liable to get a dictatorship AND a civil war simply because he’s too stubborn to give in, even if he’s not an evil man. I honestly believe that if congress fights him on this, he will use whatever means he can to win, and right or wrong, legally speaking, martial law will give him that means. In a country with spiralling debt and all the power concentrated in an unpopular organization, just try to think of an easy way out.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:39 pmeRiposte of the Left Coaster has posted about the fact that the actual Memorandum of Agreement concerning the supposed sale of 500 tons of uranium to Iraq from Niger was never part of the forged dossier that has become so infamous. I noticed this too after reviewing the facts in the case this week, and was also curious about it. However, I think eRiposte and I come to different conclusions about this fact. Mine are based on the fact that there isn’t enough evidence to conclude much about it, while eRiposte simply jumps to conclusions based on politically convenient assumptions and leaps in logic. Here’s the comment I attempted to post at FireDogLake (where I have been previously banned for throwing facts in their face) for eRiposte:
]]>
Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
Except that has nothing at all to do with why we invaded Iraq. At the time it was because Hussein had ties to Al-Queda. The AUMF sayd that we can basically attack any nation that is responsible for 9/11 or is linked to it in some manner. It says nothing about going after them because they might have WMD, but that became the cry after we learned that Al-Queda didn’t have any ties to Iraq. When we didn’t find WMDs, the cry became “Let’s liberate Iraq.” Now we’re not only in a war that’s unpopular here, but it’s unpopular with the one’s we’re supposedly trying to liberate.
So is Bush evil or stupid?
February 5th, 2007 at 6:46 pmSpudge,
Not as I would say. I am using neocon logic today. That means you have to prove that you aren’t a traitor to the United States of America. Bitch.
So mature, so mature.
Are you so uptight because you don’t have a real home and live with your mommy? I am sorry for you. Well, not really.
Actually I have my own apartment in downtown Oslo, my mommy lives thousands of miles away. If you don’t believe me, ask Larry Johnson. He knows. He keeps tabs on me.
Because you aren’t supposed to be here. That is why you aren’t using your original screen name SEIXXON. You have been banned for the crap you spew on this blog. So, don’t expect us to be happy that you are here.
Actually, I only started using this name because I thought that TP was blocking me, but it was just their comment filter delaying my comments from showing up. So if all goes as it should, this post should be under my good old name. I haven’t been banned from TP, I was asked by TP management to leave because all of you were too immature to keep the debate civil, and thus I became a destabilizing influence merely by my presence. As you are aptly proving once again with your attacks and slurs.
Zooey,
I’m sure being asked to leave is something that happens in your everyday life.
I don’t know, I think it’s pretty pathetic that many of you resort to personally insulting someone you don’t know from thousands of miles away hiding behind an alias simply because you disagree with them. Do you think you look smart with these grade school insults?
swordsbane,
Bush: “Hussein has ties to Al-Queda†No he didn’t. Hussein actively worked to keep Al-Queda out of his country.
That’s not a genuine quote. Try again.
Bush: “Liberating Iraq is vital to the war of terror†Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism until after we invaded.
In your simplistic world, I can see how you think that. Terrorism exists in the Middle East due to many factors, one of which is oppression and the general poor living standard being forced on what should otherwise be rich peoples in the region. Oh well, not going to waste time lecturing you about the complexities of the struggle with terrorism.
9/11 and terrorism was the reason congress authorized Bush to attack Iraq. Since Iraq DIDN’T have anything to do with terrorism, Bush is either a liar or stupid.
Actually, I’m quite certain that it was because Iraq was not fulfilling their end of the bargain regarding the sanctions and inspections, in addition to the USG being quite certain that Iraq still possessed WMDs, and that Saddam’s ties to terrorism (although none strong to al Qaeda) were worrisome in tandem with his WMD technology. So, either you weren’t paying attention, or you’re a liar.
“Mission Accomplished†A liar or stupid?
Bush never said this. In fact, on May 1, 2003 he said that there was a lot of work to be done, and that it would take a while. Go back and read the speech yourself. The Mission Accomplished banner was there because the carrier they were on had just returned from its mission to Iraq. Try to see things in context next time.
“Stay the course†Most military authorities and intelligence agencies “Even if they support the way say that our current strategy isn’t working. Liar or stupid?
General Petraeus developed and stands behind the current plan in Iraq. None of these people advocate withdrawal, so I’m not sure what value of liar or stupid you are trying to get to here.
Umm… which ones would those be exactly. The Senate Intelligence Comittee (which is expressly for the purpose of collating intelligence and then advising both Congress and the President) says that a phased withdraw is our best option. I don’t know an intelligence organization that’s higher up on the food chain than that, and if they don’t know what they’re talking about, why do we have them?
Read the latest NIE key judgments on Iraq. Thanks.
I apologise. I was trying to say that I disagree with conservatives. I think they are at best, deluded and at worst, hippocrits. There is no party in the country that I feel comfortable endorsing.
Well then that makes two of us.
I’m sorry that you have been so easily brainwashed due to the fact that you cannot remember what was being said in 2002. The AUMF states that the Iraq war is consistent with going after regimes that sponsor terrorism (Saddam sponsored Palestinians suicide bombers), including those involved in 9/11. That doesn’t mean Iraq was involved in 9/11. Read up on some grammar to understand the composition of that operative sentence in the AUMF.
WMDs, terrorism, democracy – all of these reasons were stated from the very beginning by Bush. Read his speech at the UN on September 12, 2002.
You are letting others rewrite history for you. Go back and read the history you have so woefully forgotten.
Bush is neither evil nor stupid. I wouldn’t say he’s smart, but he’s not stupid either. Stupid would be allowing others to cloud your mind with fantasy that is not supported by the historical record………
February 5th, 2007 at 7:14 pmSeixon,
So are you saying that U.S. News is anti-Bush? They ran an article a few weeks ago speculating whether Bush was gearing up to attack Iran.
By the way, are you just crawling back out from under your slimy rock? I haven’t seen you since the election. BWA HA HA HA HA HA!
February 5th, 2007 at 7:18 pmVerbalKint,
So are you saying that U.S. News is anti-Bush?
Eh, everything except FOX News, yeah, pretty much. CNN is pretty neutral most of the time though.
They ran an article a few weeks ago speculating whether Bush was gearing up to attack Iran.
Yes. Now think to yourself, how did that make you feel about Bush? Then realize that’s the exact reason why they published it. Then read your first comment above and have an epiphany.
By the way, are you just crawling back out from under your slimy rock? I haven’t seen you since the election. BWA HA HA HA HA HA!
Well, I haven’t really been here at TP at all since last summer, actually. And if you think I shed any tears about the election, you’d be wrong. It suits me just fine that Congress is 50/50.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:42 pmSo are you saying that U.S. News is anti-Bush?
Eh, everything except FOX News, yeah, pretty much.
Injecting a little levity into the discussion, I see.
February 5th, 2007 at 7:56 pm” Stupid would be allowing others to cloud your mind with fantasy that is not supported by the historical record……… Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 7:14 pm”
What a concise self analysis.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:13 pm“And if you think I shed any tears about the election, you’d be wrong. It suits me just fine that Congress is 50/50. Comment by Seixon — February 5, 2007 @ 7:42 pm”
This what we call the new-math. Congress constitutes both houses, and both are controlled by the democratic party. There is no 50/50, yet in typical ‘con’ fashion, Seixon believes his ‘weaker’ position (not to mention intellect) is equal to the opposition.
Sad, pathetic, but undeniably republican.
February 5th, 2007 at 9:00 pm