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.

What a concise self analysis.

Eh, everything except FOX News, yeah, pretty much.

Injecting a little levity into the discussion, I see.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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………

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

Once again, you have to prove that what I said isn’t true. You are the asswipe that doesn’t provide links or other facts. I already have, so the burden of proof is on you.

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”.

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.

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?

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.

And 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.

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.

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.

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?

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,

Seixon; 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.