VIDEO: Sestak, Andrews Dominate Debate With Tom DeLay and Richard Perle
VIDEO: Sestak, Andrews Dominate Debate With Tom DeLay and Richard Perle
Today, NBC’s Meet the Press featured a panel with retired Navy Admiral Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) and Win Without War director Tom Andrews debating former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) and prominent neocon Richard Perle.
Andrews and Sestak made short work of DeLay and Perle. Andrews emphasized how dangerous it is to place U.S. soldiers into a civil war. “Our kids don’t know when they’re out there on the streets of Baghdad, whether the people they’re next to are the enemy or their allies. … They’re losing their lives as a result.”
Sestak made the case for redeploying U.S. forces out of Iraq. “Even George Washington at the Battle of Brandywine understood after this initial clash that he had to redeploy and go elsewhere to assume the strategic victory. That’s what this is about. Is there a better way to handle Iraq and then to be able to handle the entire security environment?”
Watch it:
At one point, DeLay claimed that places like Bahrain and Qatar wouldn’t accept U.S. troops who had redeployed out of Iraq. Sestak put his hand on DeLay’s arm and informed him that the U.S. military already has bases in those countries.
Later, Perle made the incredible statement that “‘Redeploy’ is a euphemism for cut-and-run.” Note to Perle: redeployment is an official military term (see this entry in the Pentagon’s Dictionary of Military Terms). “Cut and run” is the euphemism, and a tired and false one at that.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Richard Perle and Tom Delay are eupehmisms for steaming piles of dog feces.
-GSD
March 18th, 2007 at 1:31 pmI watched it this morning and, no surprise, I agreed with Perle and DeLay more than I did the cut-and-run crowd.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:32 pmPerle was also reminded he was the one who said there would soon be a “George W. Bush Boulevard” in Baghdad.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:33 pmNo surprise there Jake, after all you are a troll of the first degree.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:34 pmAs Perle noted, this may be the first time in U.S. history an American Admiral (thinkfully retired) has recommending announcing to our enemies on what date we would be retreating. Funny how Russert seemed to lose control of the debate in the face of such forceful advocates for American victory. Good job DeLay and Perle.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:35 pmSkewered is a good word for this two on none interaction.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:35 pmRut and cun don’t cut it. Stay and die in the middle of a civil war should replace it.
Jake, You agree with the terrorist, you want to keep our troop in Iraq? I figured as much.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:36 pmdelay doesn’t even know where we have bases in the mideast? texas must have the record for sending the dumbest idiots to washington.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:36 pmNice, two wise guys combating the GOP lying machine with the only armory of truth telling.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:36 pmConsider the bottom of the GOP barrel “scraped” if disgraced ex-Congressmann Delay and Iraq War/neocon/PNAC cheerleader Perle are brought out on MTP to defend the Bush policies.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:37 pmMrHaney:
Perle stated he was not going to debate all of Andrews’s mischaracterizations of their prior debates. I know what that feels, with people here trying to get me to waste time finding and then re-posting all my many reasons why I think the U.S. Attorneys dust-up is much ado about nothing.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:37 pmjake, just how fat are you?
March 18th, 2007 at 1:38 pmRUCerious:
Do you even know how many U.S. troops died in Vietnam?
goose1:
I thought the terrorists wanted the U.S. out of Iraq?
March 18th, 2007 at 1:39 pmHow’s life under the bridge jake?
March 18th, 2007 at 1:40 pmPerle was also reminded he was the one who said there would soon be a “George W. Bush Boulevard†in Baghdad.
Comment by MrHaney — March 18, 2007
There is, too bad it is a dead-end.
-GSD
March 18th, 2007 at 1:40 pmOk, Jake, think about this for a second. Which is more important, as in more strategically beneficial to our country … 1) staying in Iraq with a low chance of actual success while fueling an insurgency and training terrorists for a future attack on the US while destroying the effectiveness of our military and bankrupting our country, or 2) pulling out of Iraq in order to preserve our military effectiveness and responsiveness to incidents around the world and keeping our country from going bankrupt?
March 18th, 2007 at 1:41 pmi figure jake is as fat and ugly as karl rove. sitting in the dark basement of his mother’s house, typing away angrily, desperate to lose his virginity.
sad.
so. very. sad.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:41 pmSo Gonzales’s Chief of Staff resigns over a nothing? Perle isn’t going to engage in any debate he knows he’s lost before it begins.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:41 pmwhuttup Jake.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:43 pmyou HAVE to find it funny that Delay didn’t know where we have military bases before making that comment-or scary, depending on where you sit.
Jake said: “As Perle noted, this may be the first time in U.S. history an American Admiral (thinkfully retired) has recommending announcing to our enemies on what date we would be retreating.”
Yet Bush and the Bush War Cultists spent all of December and January announcing that they were planning to revise the Bush strategy with a Bush Surge.
So, all the Sunnis got out of town to the areas surrounding Baghdad, where US troops are now STILL dying at a rate of 3 a day and the Shiite death squads and miltias were informed by their leaders to “lay low” because George W. Bush was surging troops into Iraq.
Heckuva job.
-GSD
March 18th, 2007 at 1:44 pmThe better question should be, how many soldiers died in Vietnam after it was determined that there was no military solution we could accomplish there? Vietnam was the place where we “won” every battle, but lost the war. Sound familiar?
March 18th, 2007 at 1:45 pmjust what the hell was delay, an INDICTED sleaze ball, doing on the
March 18th, 2007 at 1:47 pmteevee anyway???
seriously…
Jake:
Explain the story of the “Dancing Israelis” – Mossad agents caught red handed on 9/11.
Explain why they were set free without charges.
Did Israel and Cheney conspire to use 9/11 as the PRETEXT FOR WAR?
If not, explain the story of the Dancing Israelis.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:48 pmIf so, explain the story of the Dancing Israelis.
Sestak put his hand on DeLay’s arm and informed him that the U.S. military already has bases in those countries.
I love it.
I’ve got $1 that says DeLay had to use every ounce of strength he had to keep fromthrowing that hand off of him.
(video downloading — dialup, oy)
March 18th, 2007 at 1:50 pmJake, The Iraqi people want us out of Iraq. The terrorist want us bogged down there. It helps their recruiting, Training, etc. If we leave the Iraqi’s will keep fighting wit each other and kick the terrorist out.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:50 pmJake:
Dude, you’re goofy.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:50 pmBoth Perle and deLay should have warrants issued for their arrests…
…on charges of TREASON…
…and war profiteering…
…Perle is almost certainly an AIPAC/Israeli agent…
…they need to be brought to justice…
March 18th, 2007 at 1:51 pmthe jaketrolls of this world do not deserve our time or energy to “debate” them. I am sure jake “thinks” of himself as a great debater, but he is just a mass-debater. As trolls do, they say any asinine thing as often as possible not hoping to persuade or dissuade, but merely to draw attention to themselves/itself.
The jake/trolls are sad, pale, possibly pimply little boobs, longing for female companionship, but settling for a keyboard.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:52 pm#21 MrHaney
I don’t understand why people still believe winning most of the battles wins the war. Even in our own revolution, we lost most of the battles. What happened in Vietnam to the US is the same thing that happened to the French, though the Vietnamese capped off their defeat of France with the battle of Dien Bien Phu, which the French blundered into over their frustration with the unwillingness of the Vietnamese to give in.
In Iraq, our military is becoming frustrated. Such frustration is dangerous, because it will cause even the most rational of individuals to lash out and rationalize atrocities against the people of an occupied country. The situation we are in right now is quite dangerous, and if we do not get out soon I am afraid there will be such an atrocity committed that it will forever stain the soul of our nation.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:55 pmIn Jake’s defense, I’m not sure he qualifies as a “troll” as I understand the term. I don’t think he posts simply in order to derail the debate or provoke reasonable posters. I think he holds his opinions sincerely and wants to express them.
Now, having said that, I should add that he seems to have an awful lot of time to devote to this expression, and he probably gets quite a kick out of his contrariness. He also doesn’t appear to think very deeply beyond the concepts of “right — good/left — bad”, so his real contributions to the debate are minimal at best.
Then again, I could be wrong. Maybe he IS a troll.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:57 pmThe fact that Perle thinks “redeploy” means the same thing as cut and run shows how little they know about the US military. Redeploy simply means to leave. I redeployed 3 times from the middle east. I redeployed from small field training exercises…it has nothing to do with the success or failure of the mission. Just like the military calls a grocery store a commissary, so too does it use the word “redeploy” for when it is time to go. And Yes it is time to redeploy.
March 18th, 2007 at 1:59 pmI saw this was on and avoided watching.
Really, after all of his predictive failures, I would not believe Perle if he said grass was green.
I have only one question that I want to see Delay Answer: “Hey Tom, how’s your pal Abramoff been lately?” OK one more. “Been on anyjunkets to Saipan lately?”.
http://www.salon.com/news/1999/02/04news.html
http://dailydelay.blogspot.com/2005/04/northern-mariana-islands-abramoff.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_DeLay
March 18th, 2007 at 1:59 pmI do wonder at the mentality of trolls. What it is that drives a person to spend hours every day urging other people to hate them, hanging out in a virtual room filled with people who view them with utter contempt? Is the constant need to argue all that gratifying? The more I see it, the more masochistic it appears. Or perhaps it’s simply driven by the delusion that they are masters of debate, crushing their opponents like some bizarre video game. Whatever, it’s pretty damn weird.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:02 pmJake is not a troll; he is just lost and has wandered from a right leaning faithful blog somewhere.
He can only enlighten those who are as lost as is he.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:03 pmOh, and Jake, regarding your “I thought the terrorists wanted the U.S. out of Iraq?” comment, I find it difficult to imagine a BETTER scenario for the terrorists than to have the American military bogged down on their turf, where they not only serve as convenient targets but also provide great material for recruiting new jihadists.
Osama bin Laden wanted three things:
1. US military out of Saudi Arabia
2. public opinion in the Middle East to turn away from the west
3. trap the world’s opnly superpower in an unwinnable war that would drain its resources and frustrate its people.
With George Bush’s help, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
March 18th, 2007 at 2:05 pmIs this a (once) great country (on the verge of extinction) or what!
Even today, after getting our asses handed to us for four years, the people who have always been wrong about everything and bear the sole responsibility for this clusterfu#k in Iraq, are the “most credible” voices in the media.
People like Howard Dean, who have always been right about everything they ever predicted about Iraq, remain the “least credible, out-of-touch-with-reality defeatists” whose advice is not only not welcome but is still being ridiculed in the media.
Unbelievable………and we wonder why we are getting our asses kicked on every turn everywhere.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:05 pmExactly how did disgraced, ethically-challenged ex-Congressman Tom Delay and perpetually wrong war promoter and prognosticator Richard Perle get invited to this segment of MTP?
One the one hand, it was like shooting fish in a barrel for Sestak and Andrews, but on the other it was embarrasing for them to share this stage with these two stooges, and for Russert and MTP that they were the best he could do.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:06 pmI watched it this morning and, no surprise, I agreed with Perle and DeLay more than I did the cut-and-run crowd. Comment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
No surprise, you’re just as much of an ignorant lying smear artist that prefers to use *slurs* and *hypocrisy*.
Hey Jake, what about on the other thread where you said you would NEVER resort to naming calling. Yeah “the cut-and-run crowd” isn’t name calling! You st*pid hypocrite and lying piece of sh*t!
March 18th, 2007 at 2:07 pm#27 …Perle is almost certainly an AIPAC/Israeli agent…
How true. Perle’s first and foremost loyalty is not with his country of birth. Just like Feith and the other neo-cons the “only democracy in the middle east”, Israel, is Perle’s obsession. He should be executed for treason.
GO IRAQI INSURGENTS. BRING SHOCK AMD AWE TO THE STREETS OF AMERICA JUST LIKE THE AMERICAN BASTARDS DID TO YOUR STREETS.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:08 pmI thought the terrorists wanted the U.S. out of Iraq?
Comment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
You *think*? Unlikely. As for what the terrorists want, you missed the little Al Qaeda memo they retrieved when they killed Zarqawi? The one that said the *goal* of Al Qaeda was to get us into Iraq and keep us there while killing and injuring our soldiers? How does it feel to know you’re nothing more than Osama’s ignorant b*tch, doing whatever he wants? You stuuuuupid old ignorant lying fool!
March 18th, 2007 at 2:09 pm#36 Abby:
BINGO! Well said.
I’m waiting for the right wing to pre-emptively spring some new talking point on us, something about maybe “the tyranny of competence”.
I’m thinking it goes something like this: “For too long the liberal media has kow-towed to the opinions of the so-called ‘competent elite’. Just because a public figure has been proven consistently correct is no reason to pay attention to everything they say.”
March 18th, 2007 at 2:11 pmListening to two Chickenhawks explain “military strategy” to a Vice Admiral was surreal.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:13 pmits never been the case that republican cultists have been correct about anything. Its always been the case that republican cultists have dominated the dialog, enabled by their corporate media lapdogs who have made sure that the republican lies, smears, and deceptions are all that the average American hears.
Put a republican cultist at the same table as anyone knowledgeable in the truth and the republican always looks like the lying, ignorant, phantasmagorical ass that they are.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:15 pm.
What I hate (and I mean hate) about people like Mr. Perle is their argument comes down to predicting terrible things that will happen if other things are done, e.g., pulling US troops out of Iraq. And these imaginary, invented scenarios are argued with full confidence that everyone knows this is what will happen!
No one knows the future!!! This seemingly random, pure speculation should not be taken seriously by any interested party.
On the occasion when he spins out one of these fantastic scenarios, someone should sternly ask, “How, exactly how do you know this will happen?” I predict sputtering, inarticulateness and exasperation will follow!
March 18th, 2007 at 2:19 pmAnd we have this Washington Post story, discussing the latest intelligence report that *dismisses* the threat of Iraq Al Qaeda against the security of the US.
So while the trolls were Jake’ing all over the thread – they were just embarrassing themselves with their own st*pidity and ignorance!
Anyone else see this little tidbit about the *surge*?
They’ll quickly discover the Bush strategy fits squarely in the DON’ts!!
March 18th, 2007 at 2:19 pmJoe Sestak is my new congressman. I gave money, went to fundraisers and rallies, passed out literature door-to-door, and worked the polls all day. I couldn’t be prouder. It was time and money well spent. He is representing the sense of the district in a way I never thought possible. I just sent another check to support his re-election. I just worry that the next administration will poach him.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:22 pmJake,
Like we give a rats ass that you agreed with the evil overlords. Republicans are evil thugs and you are their puppet.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:23 pmJake,
Again with the fourth grade sentence structure, “has recommending announcing…”
You too funny!
March 18th, 2007 at 2:25 pmbetter dead than redstate and mparker:
I am 155 pounds, 6 foot 2, and happily married for 53 years. Any other questions?
AshenShard:
Under your hypothetical, I’d go with choice 2) but not announce the date to the terrorists (besides, our country is not going bankrupt).
MrHaney:
Maybe it was because MTP is an hour show?
whiteyfresh:
Maybe DeLay knows that neither Saudia Arabia nor Barain will agree to taking 175,000 American troops?
ace:
If I had more than an hour, I would. Maybe if Nico starts a thread on tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories again?
goose1:
As soon as the DEMOCRATICALLY elected government of Iraq ask us to leave, we will.
KRank:
Regardless of what the terrorists want, I want our troops fighting them over there rather than here. And, yes, I hold that belief sincerely. Whether you think that makes me a “troll” or not is of no concern to me.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:26 pmPerle & AEI = Never been right about anything.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:26 pmI have to give Jake a few points, at least he’s trying to stay on topic. The typical GOPer will troll into a blog and immediately say something insulting and completely off topic in order to create a Rovian diversion — look at me, i’m exposing myself, isn’t it small, look over here everyone. Regardless of how humiliating, the goal is to switch the topic, and they’re pretty effective.
The fact that MTP would give any time to Tom Delay, aside from airing his mug shot or reviewing the pending charges against him, shows what utter suckups they are: in case anyone missed the Libby testimony the purpose of Sunday talking head shows is to aid the dissemination of GOP talking points.
Another sign of what suckup they are is that before Perle ever opens his mouth, a network should be required to show a short reel of his worst predictions. Perle is part of the We’ve-Been-Wrong-On-Everything clan. Yet, MTP features him as some sort of credible source of opinion and expertise. Perle is simply an idealogue for who lives in a separate reality.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:27 pmRocks911:
You try responding to a hundred posts, as fast as you can, and let me know who that goes. At least I do it without resorting to name-calling.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:28 pm“Barain” = Bahrain
March 18th, 2007 at 2:29 pmPerle and Delay are creepy. They ooze creepiness. Yuck.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:29 pmJust a couple of old Israel loving pervs feeding good christian soldiers into the hamburger hopper.
Thanks, ScrewBush, for the compliment (I guess), but are you really saying that Tim Russert’s purpose on MTP is to aid the dissemination of GOP talking points?! Or, you were just talking about DeLay and Perle? How about Tom Andrews?
March 18th, 2007 at 2:32 pm“who” = how (LOL)
March 18th, 2007 at 2:33 pmAs Perle noted, this may be the first time in U.S. history an American Admiral (thinkfully retired) has recommending announcing to our enemies on what date we would be retreating.
Comment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
The Iraqi people are now our enemies?
March 18th, 2007 at 2:33 pmJake,
Paaaaaaalease, I don’t argue with pigs it gets you nowhere and it annoys the pig.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:33 pmRichard Perle is about as loathsome a public figure in D.C. right now (among the neo-cons, the only one who visually angers me as much is the eternally smug yet eternally dead wrong Bill Kristol). It was so nice to see Andrews and especially Sestak take him apart. The neo-cons still have not taken responsibility for being wrong about EVERYTHING and Perle is no exception. But he’s washed up now. Hell, he dragged out the tired old “cut and run” verse. Like we should take millitary advice from a guy who’s biggest millitary experence is an all night game of RISK. (RISK is probably Perle and the neo-cons favorite game, however, simply because in that game, you can conquer the entire Middle East in one turn).
Another note: It was sure fun watching Admiral Joe Sestak debate Tom “Minorities took my spot for Vietnam” DeLay. Isn’t it time for DeLay to go to jail yet? The man’s not only scum, he has no idea what he’s talking about. And like always, he can’t help but impugn people’s patriotism. Scum is actually a mild term to describe him.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:34 pmRegardless of what the terrorists want, I want our troops fighting them over there rather than here. Comment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Our *troops* have never fought them here, and how do you expect an Al Qaeda army to get here, life rafts? That’s one of the st*pidest comments you’ve made, and boy you’ve made lots!
And, yes, I hold that belief sincerely. Whether you think that makes me a “troll†or not is of no concern to me. Comment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Then why are NeoCons in Cheney’s office Funding Al Qaeda-Tied groups in Iraq? What *beliefs* you hold only demonstrate your *ignorance* and *st*pidity*, and of course you don’t care what I think! If you had any self respect or brains, you’d know better, and what I *think* about you reflects poorly against your st*pidity! You can’t have any *concern* for my evaluation, otherwise you’d break down in a pile of tears, you st*pid fool.!
March 18th, 2007 at 2:36 pmFunny thing – TP is an excelllent example of “skewed” perspective and eye witness testimony. I saw the show this morning ad thought Richard Perle did an excellent job making his point. After watching the retired Rear Admiral…I was VERY glad he was retired!!
March 18th, 2007 at 2:36 pmFunny how Russert seemed to lose control of the debate in the face of such forceful advocates for American victory.
Comment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
How do we win in a civil war? Either the Shiites win or the Sunnis win.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:36 pmThanks, ScrewBush, for the compliment (I guess), but are you really saying that Tim Russert’s purpose on MTP is to aid the dissemination of GOP talking points?! Or, you were just talking about DeLay and Perle? How about Tom Andrews? Comment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
The purpose of Sunday Talk shows is to disseminate GOP talking points. It’s why they have GOP spinners at about twice the numbers of liberals. The media is run by GOP hacks, pure and simple. And shows like this show why that’s a bad thing.
Tell me Jake, were you always this st*pid, or is it the Alzheimers like RayGun that made you st*pid?
March 18th, 2007 at 2:38 pmJakey, thanks for confirming, “regardless of what the terrorists want, I want our troops fighting them over there rather than here.”
In light of that clearly articulated philosophy, why in the world did you ask the question of goose1, “I thought the terrorists wanted the U.S. out of Iraq?” if you didn’t care about the answer?
March 18th, 2007 at 2:39 pmFunny thing – TP is an excelllent example of “skewed†perspective and eye witness testimony. Comment by valiant venus — March 18, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
Funny thing – yours is an excellent (Spelling) example of “skewed” perspective of eyewitness testimony. You do know that “eyewitness” is one word – right Mizz *FAKE* attorney?
I saw the show this morning ad thought Richard Perle did an excellent job making his point. After watching the retired Rear Admiral…I was VERY glad he was retired!! Comment by valiant venus — March 18, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
That only makes the point that you’re a st*pid c*nt, it doesn’t make Perle look better – Mighty Anorexic. You were glad he retired? We’ll be glad when you NeoCons don’t run the show anymore. To find people as incompetent as you, one must generally find a homeless person.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:40 pmThe spice must flow!
March 18th, 2007 at 2:40 pmAs soon as the DEMOCRATICALLY elected government of Iraq ask us to leave, we will.
Comment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Iraqi leaders have already asked for a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from their country.
Also, most Iraqis think US should leave Iraq.
These are the facts that are usually ignored by the “I support the troops” crowd, busy -as they are- thinking up reasons to support the American occupation of Iraq,
March 18th, 2007 at 2:40 pmBODY BY ****
thinks the creepy oozing crowd are of liars are “forceful advocates for American victory.” So manly. So heroic. As if it never matters that they’re lying and always end up being wrong.
Stop staring at their packages **** and listen to what they’re saying.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:43 pmYeah–why the hell did MTP have DeLay and Perle on the panel? Both discredited GOP has beens. Like we care about their boatloads of bs.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:45 pm#41 KRank: I like that. The tyranny of competence…..
Given the “faith” and the double digit IQ of their target audience, I think the Rethugs can make it work: “This country must never give in to the forces of evil liberalism and their tyranny of competence.”
March 18th, 2007 at 2:45 pmFunny thing – TP is an excelllent example of “skewed†perspective and eye witness testimony. I saw the show this morning ad thought Richard Perle did an excellent job making his point. After watching the retired Rear Admiral…I was VERY glad he was retired!!
Comment by valiant venus
It is a funny thing, isn’t it Hagette? But the truly funny thing is that you think it’s TP that has a skewed perspective.
Bless your heart. I know it’s hard, Haggie, but look in the mirror and you’ll find “skewed.”
March 18th, 2007 at 2:50 pmNat & Gregor Samsa:
“Cut and run” Murtha wants us to leave too — luckily he is not the ENTIRETY of the American government — once the Iraqi GOVERNMENT asks us to leave, we will. I could care less what opinion polls say.
Rocks911:
Then stop arguing with me.
ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus:
If you have an actual question besides personal attacks, let me know.
KRank:
I was making fun of goose1.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:55 pmRegardless of what the terrorists want, I want our troops fighting them over there rather than here. And, yes, I hold that belief sincerely.
Comment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Ultimately, this is what it all comes down to: the 30%ers support the occupation of Iraq, even against the wishes of the government and the citizens of that country. It is imperial arrogance, nothing more.
It is all about what they want, Iraq’s sovereignty be damned, and their cries of “spreading democracy” notwithstanding.
Whether you think that makes me a “troll†or not is of no concern to me.
If you do not care what people in this blog think, why even try to debate or continue to post comments?
March 18th, 2007 at 2:56 pmonce the Iraqi GOVERNMENT asks us to leave, we will. I could care less what opinion polls say.
Comment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Did you notice I linked an article about the Iraqi GOVERNMENT asking for a timetable for withdrawal.
Funny you dismiss the opinion of the Iraqi people -Pres Bush has hailed Iraq’s sovereignty and democracy. I guess they actually have neither (as if I didn’t know already).
March 18th, 2007 at 2:59 pmBottom line is
Bush, SCOOTER LIBBY the convicted felon, Cheney, Rummy, Rice, Perle, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Pointdexter, Negroponte, etc.
are TRAITORS to the USA and WAR CRIMINALS.
Illegal wars, illegal domestic spying, obstruction of justice, and outright STEALING from the coffers of the USA through
WAR PROFITEERING and TAX BREAKS FOR THE RICH.
All of the PROPAANDA by Fox “news†and azz-kissing by “jakeâ€, “valiant venusâ€, is just more about Clinton’s Dikc!!
While Osama is STILL FREE 5 1/2 years later, and we are fukcd in Iraq.
God Bless America, the Democrats and the WORLD!
BURN in HELL for ETERNITY, TRAITOR Bush
March 18th, 2007 at 3:01 pmyou silver-spoon little AWOL coxucker PUNK!
“Cut and run†Murtha wants us to leave too — luckily he is not the ENTIRETY of the American government — once the Iraqi GOVERNMENT asks us to leave, we will. I could care less what opinion polls say.
Comment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
No country likes to be occupied and Iraq is now different. The Iraqis don’t want us there and they’re blowing the troops up as a result.
March 18th, 2007 at 3:03 pmFunny, that Jake troll seems to say we’ll leave when the Iraqis want us to leave. Well, given the government wants us to leave, the public overwhelmingly wants us to leave and our only purpose there seems to be as shooting targets for the various factions as they prep for all out civil war, I’d say they want us to get the hell out.
But then, Jake is like Perle and DeLay; oblivious to reality when it contradicts his worldview. Sad.
March 18th, 2007 at 3:06 pmIn #75 it should read “Iraq is no different.”
March 18th, 2007 at 3:06 pmThe two shortest books in the world;
March 18th, 2007 at 3:07 pm“French Military Heroes”
and
“The George W. Bush Success Story”.
Does anyone think Richard Perle and Bill Kristol will get to be the Grand Masters of the “Iraq Victory Parade” down Baghdad’s George W. Bush Blvd? I imagine this parade will start at Cheney PetroWorks and end near the Rove School of Neocon Policy.
March 18th, 2007 at 3:10 pmIf you have an actual question besides personal attacks, let me know. Comment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Yeah, why are you such an illiterate fool? Now, if you have something other than *hypocrisy* (you know, like calling everyone cut-and-runners), let me know. St*pid hypocritical dum bass.
Where was that *pledge* you wouldn’t name call again? Oh yeah, right there with *ALL* CON pledges. Out the window in a fury of hypocrisy! Idiot!
March 18th, 2007 at 3:12 pm“Cut and run†Murtha wants us to leave too — luckily he is not the ENTIRETY of the American government — once the Iraqi GOVERNMENT asks us to leave, we will. I could care less what opinion polls say.
Comment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Yeah, you *NEVER* name call, and personally attack! You’re a psychotic moron!
March 18th, 2007 at 3:12 pm“Cut and run†Murtha wants us to leave too — luckily he is not the ENTIRETY of the American government — once the Iraqi GOVERNMENT asks us to leave, we will. I could care less what opinion polls say. Comment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
How do we *ALL* know Jake is brain damaged? He *IGNORED* the link where the Iraqi government already *ASKED* us to leave.
Jake, you’re a big pile of steaming, lying, st*pid horse-sh*t!
March 18th, 2007 at 3:14 pmHi Jake,
How’s Osama doing, and have you seen him lately? Funny how your Administration and lapdog GOP boys have seemingly forgotten all about that silly guy who’s forces actually attacked us on our own soil. I’m sure glad we’ve diverted our troops not once but twice away from Afghanistan and the Pakistani border so we can find all those darn WMDs/al Qaeda links (1st time), or fight off a non-existent civil war (2nd time), aren’t you?
Second, why the hell would Sunnis fight us “over here”? For what rhyme or reason? There’s absolutely no credibility to such asinine talking points. Did the N. Vietnamese come and attack us after we left? How ’bout N. Koreans? The Serbs? Germans? Anyone? Have you actually examined that talking point with scrutiny before?
And finally, you should be outright embarrassed that someone who’s indicted and kicked out of Congress represents your talking points. Then again, it’s rare to see GOPers like yourself have any shame. By all means, keep trumping up their points.
March 18th, 2007 at 3:14 pmI watched it this morning and, no surprise, I agreed with Perle and DeLay more than I did the cut-and-run crowd.
Comment by Jake
Say didn’t Reagan cut and run from Beirut?
Bush sr also cut and ran from Iraq because he knew it would become a quagmire. And now you agree with a disgraced ex Senator and majority whip who doesn’t even know of these bases?
A fecking mazing. There is no end to your gullibility. I think Fecks Snooze is calling you, better run along now.
March 18th, 2007 at 3:17 pmI could care less what opinion polls say
Which was why your corrupt, ignorant party lost Congress, dear Jake. You might want to reconsider listening to what the people have to say if you stand a chance in ‘08.
March 18th, 2007 at 3:18 pmonce the Iraqi GOVERNMENT asks us to leave, we will. I could care less what opinion polls say.
Comment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
But George W. Bush said he would never need a “permission slip” from another country in order to act militarily.
Looks like Commander in Chowder Nuts now needs a “permission slip” from the Iraqis in order to leave.
Make up your minds.
-GSD
March 18th, 2007 at 3:20 pmGood point Gregor but you missed one of the major supporters of the US occupation of Iraq.
That would be Osama Bin Laden. Every day in Iraq means more supporters for him. Every single day means the US is more marginalized as a power. It’s military , economic and strategic stregnth withering.
Every idiot cheering for this war is supporting our enemy.
March 18th, 2007 at 3:21 pmWhy didn’t the Iraqi’s follow-us home back in 1991?
-GSD
March 18th, 2007 at 3:21 pmI was also pleased to hear this type of question in the broadcast: “Why shouldn’t we listen to those who were right about the war from the start instead of those who were wrong?”
I would’ve been even more pleased to see those who were wrong from the start not be given a forum on MTP to continue to spew their muck.
Andrews and Sestak were great today. Perle and Delay are so yesterday…or rather, that’s how they should be treated, if not worse.
March 18th, 2007 at 3:23 pm“If we don’t fight them there, we will have to fight them here.”
That is enough to make me shit my pants and hide under my bed. No, I am not a coward, it just makes good sense to be afraid of supermen who can and would swim across a couple of oceans to take us on at home.
Or maybe they’ll parachute in? Cargo containers, maybe?
Anyway, please let me know when it’s safe to come out.
March 18th, 2007 at 3:24 pmHi Jake,
How’s Osama doing, and have you seen him lately?
Comment by MisterOpus1 — March 18, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
As Bill Maher said “Bush told us Osama bin Laden ‘could run but he can’t hide’. But he ran and hid.”
March 18th, 2007 at 3:26 pmBreadcrumbs and sand look alot alike or they would have found us already.
March 18th, 2007 at 3:28 pm7 more of your boys wont know the difference anymore, thanks to you and the ones who support this sh*t.
March 18th, 2007 at 3:29 pmTim usually shows historic footage of what his guest said before but not for Perle and Delay. They would have appeared to be discredited lunatics.
March 18th, 2007 at 3:31 pm“French Military Heroesâ€
and
“The George W. Bush Success Storyâ€.
Comment by WaltTheMan
It seems that there are in France 3 streets named after Carnot, not Sadi but Lazare, the father. That tells you a lot about what´s the scientists role in the world according to governments.
March 18th, 2007 at 3:35 pmMaybe Jake and the like should read this????
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Intelligence_experts_al_Qaeda_in_Iraq_0318.html
“Intelligence experts: al Qaeda in Iraq ‘poses little danger’ to US”
But what do thest people know….. They only do this for a living!
March 18th, 2007 at 3:37 pmAny person that analyzes wars in terms of victory and defeat has, in my opinion, a serious sexual insatisfaction problem which is projected into the geopolitical arena.
March 18th, 2007 at 3:40 pmEvery idiot cheering for this war is supporting our enemy.
Comment by mparker — March 18, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
I agree. The invasion was a bad idea from the very beginning.
The war supporters have been proven wrong about practically every single one of their premises about Iraq, Iraqis, the occupation, etc.
Why the Epsilon-minus, war supporters of the world -like Jake, Delay, and Perle- could even think the rest of us should pay attention to their opinion anymore defies simple logic.
They were wrong. We told them so back when the White House was hyping the “Iraqi threat”. Now they’d like to pretend nobody warned them, and hope we have as short an attention span as they do.
Thinking Delay and Perle had anything meaningful to say is the ultimate self-delusion. What a sad, pathetic lot.
March 18th, 2007 at 3:41 pmThanks Gregor, for getting the thread back on track.
I can’t locate it atm, but there was a recent interview with the “real” Iraqi leadership who claimed it would take no more that two weeks to get Iraq back under control once the US forces leave. Considering that the Sunni and Shiite factions lived together quite peacefully for many generations, I have no reason to doubt that such a miracle is possible. I’m looking for the article now. Meanwhile, it is helpful to keep the reality in focus — the Iraqi civil war is entirely the result of Anglo-American subversion, starting roughly with the destruction of the Golden Mosque of Samarra.
March 18th, 2007 at 3:46 pmI think the liberals on the panel could have been stronger.
Tom Delay laughed as he told Admiral Sestak that he wanted to “Surrender”. Here is a wimp, who never served a day in the military, telling an ADMIRAL from the US NAVY that he wants to surrender.
Sestak shouldn’t have taken that. Delay clearly doesn’t understand the meaning of the word surrender, as surrender means LAYING DOWN YOUR ARMS AND TURNING YOURSELF OVER to the CUSTODY OF YOUR ENEMY.
Withdrawing from a country we are occupying cannot even REMOTELY be associated with surrendering.
Of course, since Delay never served a day in the military (though to listen to the lardass talk you’d think he was George Patton), and is obviously the result of a home schooling experiment gone terribly wrong, its probable that he just doesn’t understand the meaning of the word.
Maybe Sestak should take the microphone and beat him in the face with it until he surrenders. Then I bet he’d understand the word.
March 18th, 2007 at 3:48 pmI think the liberals on the panel could have been stronger.
Tom Delay laughed as he told Admiral Sestak that he wanted to “Surrender”. Here is a wimp, who never served a day in the military, telling an ADMIRAL from the US NAVY that he wants to surrender.
Sestak shouldn’t have taken that. Delay clearly doesn’t understand the meaning of the word surrender, as surrender means LAYING DOWN YOUR ARMS AND TURNING YOURSELF OVER to the CUSTODY OF YOUR ENEMY.
Withdrawing from a country we are occupying cannot even REMOTELY be associated with surrendering.
Of course, since Delay never served a day in the military (though to listen to the lardass talk you’d think he was George Patton), and is obviously the result of a home schooling experiment gone terribly wrong, its probable that he just doesn’t understand the meaning of the word.
Maybe Sestak should take the microphone and beat him in the face with it until he surrenders. Then I bet he’d understand the meaning of the word.
March 18th, 2007 at 3:49 pmBTW: did General Washington ANNOUNCE TO THE BRITISH his plans to redeploy???
March 18th, 2007 at 3:51 pmIt is sad to see two guys like Perle and Delay acting as brave men on television and accusing the Admiral of ’surrendering’, yet when their time was to serve in Viet Nam they went hiding.
March 18th, 2007 at 3:59 pmComment by The Artist Formerly Known as WORFEUS
Welcome back old friend.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:01 pmI guess Bush never announced his “surge” and I guess Bush never announced he was going to attack Fallujah as well?
Announcing that your going to attack a particular point is the dumb and dangerous move Bush has often made.
Announce that your leaving and everyone takes a step back and waits.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:02 pmWhy didn’t the show end with somebody spraying DeLie with cockroach juice?
March 18th, 2007 at 4:03 pmNo Jake.
What General Washington did, was “HIT-N-RUN”, just like the Iraqi resistance is doing to our invading army.
Washington lost almost every single skirmish he fought with the British.
In fact, almost all of the battles ended with the Americans FLEEING the battlefield, tails between their legs, as they ran for cover to BLEND BACK INTO THE POPULATION.
Thats how we won our freedom genius.
Thats how America beat the overwhelming forces of the Crown.
By waging an embedded INSURGENCY.
By sabotoge and plunder.
England was stronger, and had a better army. But the American RESITANCE FIGHTERS refused to come out onto the battlefield to meet the british in most skirmishes, and it is hard to fight an enemy who HIDES BEHIND WOMEN AND CHILDREN BY BLENDING INTO THE CIVILIAN POPLULATION, which is what we were doing.
Just like the Iraqi’s.
England didn’t “lose” the revolutionary war. They simply decided it was too costly to continue to funnel money and resources into the war, and decided to withdraw to England and establish trade with us instead of killing us.
Thats how we “beat” England and won our freedom.
And thats exactly how the Iraqi people are beat us, and win their freedom, to be governed, how THEY choose, not how WE choose.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:04 pmdid General Washington ANNOUNCE TO THE BRITISH his plans to redeploy???
Comment by Jake
I didnt know US forces were fighting to liberate the US from Iraq´s imperial grip.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:04 pmdid General Washington ANNOUNCE TO THE BRITISH his plans to redeploy???
Hmm, interesting analogy, considering it was OUR country, OUR land, and OUR rights and liberty we were rightfully fighting for against a tyrannical king. Are you somehow equating Iraq in the same breath?
March 18th, 2007 at 4:06 pmI didnt know US forces were fighting to liberate the US from Iraq´s imperial grip.
Comment by Juan C
Jake and his kind have it all figured out — in their own screwed up, insane way. :D
March 18th, 2007 at 4:08 pmEngland stated when they are going to withdraw their troops from Iraq;
before that Italy,South Korea,Spain, and Japan…they all put a scheduled
date of their departure from Iraq.
Are they all surrendering..or helping the enemy?!!
March 18th, 2007 at 4:09 pmHi Zooey.
Looks like I slipped in under the radar.
:D
March 18th, 2007 at 4:11 pmJake and his kind have it all figured out — in their own screwed up, insane way. :D
Comment by Zooey
Zoo, good afternoon.
Jake needs victories, even if it means to destroy a country, to feed his empty, pathetic life. Just read across his lines and you will find a craving desire to fill the void of personal frustrations.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:14 pmLooks like I slipped in under the radar.
:D
Comment by The Artist Formerly Known as WORFEUS
Yay! I hope you stick around for a while — or you’re allowed to. I learn a lot from your comments.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:14 pmjake is a dog’s name.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:15 pm(1) You do realize the absurdity of that statement, don’t you? Of course you don’t. FYI, George Washington was an “insurgent/terrorist” and the British were the Law of the Land.
(2) And Redeploy? I thought you said redeploy was just another name for “cut & run”. I don’t remember George Washington ever cutting and running…….I’ll look it up.
Does your mum know you are on the internets? Ask your mum to review your crap before you post it on the net.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:16 pmJake needs victories, even if it means to destroy a country, to feed his empty, pathetic life. Just read across his lines and you will find a craving desire to fill the void of personal frustrations.
Comment by Juan C
Hello Juan,
Are you recovered from being Irish yesterday? :)
You’re right, I think Jake has lived long enough that he thinks he has all the answers. He forgot that he needs to keep learning — and that he and those who think like him are not the center of the universe. :P
March 18th, 2007 at 4:20 pmWhen Richard Perle said today that he still believes Iraq and Saddam Hussien was a quote “serious threat to the United States”, he was actually saying, “I’m a big fat coward, who is afraid of a tiny nation thousands of miles away with absolutely no Navy, no long range Air Force, a devestated dismanteled army sporting 1950’s NATO tanks and Viet Nam era weapons”
In fact, anyone who think Iraq is or was a threat to the US is a blubbering coward, and a wimp.
If they had been brave, they would have went after Bin Laden, but they’re afraid of India and Pakistan, because they have real armies, and real weapons, and real nukes.
So instead, wimps like Delay, Perle and JAKE, decided we needed to go blow the crap out of a tiny little defenseless nation who hadn’t even threatened us, just because they were Arab’s too, and therefore “LOOKED” like the 911 terrorists.
Bush, Cheney, Delay, Perle, Wolfiwitz, Rice, and every idiot who follows them, are WIMPS. COWARDS AND WIMPS, too afraid of a real fight to do anything to about 911.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:21 pmjake is a dog’s name.
Comment by jeff — March 18, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
I would never name a dog Jake. It’s an insult to dogs everywhere!!!
March 18th, 2007 at 4:21 pmjake is a dog’s name.
Comment by jeff
It was determined a couple days ago that Jake is, um…..flushable.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:26 pmLooks like I slipped in under the radar. :D
Comment by The Artist Formerly Known as WORFEUS — March 18, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
yay! me too!… so that’s what happened to you…
maybe the new management will be more respectful! … think?
March 18th, 2007 at 4:28 pmAre you recovered from being Irish yesterday? :)
Comment by Mistress Z
Ha ha. No, there arent irish traditions in Mexico. Guess they all went to NY docks.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:30 pmThe Artist Formerly Known as WORFEUS:
So, you are saying that Saddam would NEVER have given WMD to terrorists? I think I will trust our President more than your trusted Saddam.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:31 pmoh, and i wanted to add…
according to your history lesson, it seems there may be hope for iraq’s fight for democracy yet… at our expense… how ironic is that?
March 18th, 2007 at 4:31 pmHi Zooey.
Looks like I slipped in under the radar.
:D
Comment by The Artist Formerly Known as WORFEUS — March 18, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
I asked about you recently…everyone…was wondering…we missed you…welcome back!!
March 18th, 2007 at 4:33 pm“Andrews and Sestak made short work of DeLay and Perle.”
BS! Those two wouldn’t even answer Perle’s main question: Perle asked how redeploying would affect the outcome in Iraq and the second twit Sestak wouldn’t answer the question. All he did was deflect and start talking about Iran and then started trying to make a lame case that Iran and Syria has the same interests as the U.S. LOL!
March 18th, 2007 at 4:34 pmDeath Toll Hits ‘Million’
Updated: 16:38, Sunday March 18, 2007
The number of deaths in Iraq since the start of the conflict could be as high as one million, according to a new estimate.
An Australian scientist published the figure using four sets of independent data, including information from the United Nations Children’s Fund and the UN’s population division, as well as medical literature.
Dr Gideon Polya’s figure is far higher than the previous biggest estimate of 655,000.
“Using the most comprehensive and authoritative literature, and UN demographic data yields an estimate of one million post-invasion excess deaths in Iraq,” he said.
A spokesman for the Stop The War Coalition said the figure was “astonishing”.
He added: “Four years after the start of the conflict in Iraq we can now see what a disaster the war has been.
“Everything that the Stop The War movement predicted would happen has taken place – but it has been far worse than we feared.”,,,
March 18th, 2007 at 4:37 pmTracy,
Naturally, the “second twit,” being a retired Navy Admiral, doesn’t know a damn thing about military issues.
Thank you for supporting the troops.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:38 pmWhy would Russert even entertain having that criminal DeLay ON his show? At this juncture with these incredulous scandals breaking across the headlines why does Tim have these guys on, debating the semantics of “re-deploy” and “cut and run”? Isn’t this news item a little like day-old, white bread? Maybe I answered my own question; NBC IS a LOT like day-old, white bread. LIKE Tim, HATE NBC!
March 18th, 2007 at 4:39 pm#31
“Just like the military calls a grocery store a commissary, so too does it use the word “redeploy†for when it is time to go.”
Before the mission is accomplished. Tell us how redeploying would held the situation in Iraq?
March 18th, 2007 at 4:40 pm“Everything that the Stop The War movement predicted would happen has taken place – but it has been far worse than we feared.â€,,,
Comment by Tobey Tall — March 18, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
Very bad news…Except some of us predicted Iraq would be the start of WWIII. And it is…GW Botch must be tried for war crimes (in the US so that the death penalty could apply) and properly punished!!! Only then can we begin to make friends in the world again!!!!
March 18th, 2007 at 4:44 pmDEATH TOLL IN IRAQ 1 MILLION READ SKY NEWS FRONT PAGE
TIME TO IMPEACH THAT DOG OF WAR BUSH
March 18th, 2007 at 4:45 pmI think I will trust our President more than your trusted Saddam.
Comment by Jake
Leader…never…wrong. Must…obey…leader.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:49 pm#40
“As for what the terrorists want, you missed the little Al Qaeda memo they retrieved when they killed Zarqawi? The one that said the *goal* of Al Qaeda was to get us into Iraq and keep us there while killing and injuring our soldiers?”
The memo you refer to is here and it isn’t about al Qaeda wanting to keep the U.S. in Iraq. Actually it the real goal of al Qaeda:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/11/AR2005101101353.html
Can you point to where another letter states that al Qaedas goal or one of it’s goals is the keep us in Iraq?
March 18th, 2007 at 4:51 pmI guess after Russert’s sizzling testimony re/CIA-outing, NBC feels they have to suck Chimpy’s toes and bend over for a little anal probe by WH. What a big ‘ole corporate whore network NBC is! God, I hate them!
March 18th, 2007 at 4:53 pmGregor Samsa,
That is not good enough for the trolls (should be “drools”) they want EVERY Iraqi citizen to come over here and knock on Shrimpy’s front door and ask him to get the troops out. A POLL!? Ha! They do not accept polls.
And the article you linked to states:
“But recently President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, said that foreign troops could start leaving in 2006 or 2007″
Pshaw, Puhlease, “President, President, we don’t recognize no stinkin’ President.”
March 18th, 2007 at 4:53 pmApologies to The Good, the Bad and the Ugly .
That sounds like MTP today.
Since Jake has announced that he has been happily married for 52 years, I have my dectectives hot on the other 7 years.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:53 pm#71
Don’t bother that’s the ONLY think VVGFU does here. He’s a chihuahua that bark alot.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:54 pmDEATH TOLL IN IRAQ 1 MILLION READ SKY NEWS HERE
March 18th, 2007 at 4:55 pmTell us how redeploying would held the situation in Iraq?
Comment by Tracy
Our country commited a criminal act by invading a country that was not an imminent threat to us. This is the same standard we hold others up to.
Your argument is like a rapist looking up to the cops and saying, “How is pulling out going to help this womans situation?”
What the Iraqis do with their “situation” really isnt any of our business. And after this savage attack we perpetrated against them when they had nothing to do with 911 we really have no right to demand anything.
The people that made this happen need to shut up … pull out of the victim… and be dealt with in the courts of justice.
IF Bush had went after Osama in Pakistan and things went badly THEN they could be going on about stay the coarse and “victory”…. but they didnt… in fact Bush openly declared to not think about the Al Qeada leader very much any more as he was concentrating on this rape of Iraq. We have no righteous argument or justifiable excuse for remaining in that country even one more day. If the Iraqis want to kill themselves off then they have every right to just as we did here in the US under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln.
It is far far past time to shut these “Americans” up that made this happen. And it is far past time to pick up the ball they dropped and get about winning over all the people that could become terrorists one day on our side as friends and intelligently and deliberately making the changes neccessary to remove the advantages people like the Saudis have over us by changing our energy supply system and strangling their economies and isolating them from the world… with the world on our side.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:55 pmTracy:
Good points.
Mistress Z:
Did you see my posts above how I am grateful this particular Rear Admiral is retired?
Juan C:
I’ve never said that Bush has never been wrong. I simply trust him more than your side trusted Saddam, that’s all.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:56 pmWhy would Russert even entertain having that criminal DeLay ON his show? At this juncture with these incredulous scandals breaking across the headlines why does Tim have these guys on, debating the semantics of “re-deploy†and “cut and run� Isn’t this news item a little like day-old, white bread? Maybe I answered my own question; NBC IS a LOT like day-old, white bread. LIKE Tim, HATE NBC!
Comment by R — March 18, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
March 18th, 2007 at 4:56 pmDon’t worry, Gerald Gibson Jr ., the “rapist” will be done no later than January 20, 2009. Just lay back and enjoy.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:58 pmCan you point to where another letter states that al Qaedas goal or one of it’s goals is the keep us in Iraq?
Comment by Tracy
Commonsense says that after seeing their tactics in Afghanistan against the USSR… and knowing that they have no navy or air force that can pose a threat to the American home land… that their ONLY chance of winning any military battles against us is if we are stupid enough to do what the USSR did… and with Bush at the wheel we really are that dumb.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:59 pm#128: I think it’s long past the time when redeployment would have served it’s purpose. Yes, it’s a real military term and it’s not even close to cut&run.
As to what would happen when we cut & run (that’s the only option we have boxed ourselves into), an educated guess, based on all his predictions over the past four years would say, “the exact opposite of what Richard Pearl says will happen”.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:59 pm#126
I didn’t say he didn’t know about military issues. I said he did what politicians do…he deflects and starts to talk about something else.
March 18th, 2007 at 4:59 pmI watched this morning. Sestak and Andrews were brilliant.
I am guessing that Delay and Perle were there because no one in office wanted to defend the war or the escalation. At least not with a retired Vice Admiral debating the other side.
Delay showed us today how ignorant he is. The bugman is nothing more than a yellow-bellied, lying, bully. The must have extremely low standards for guests on Meet the Press.
The best Perle could do was repeat loser talking points.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:00 pmWaltTheMan:
What “other 7 years”? Does this have something to do with that TV show Lost?
March 18th, 2007 at 5:01 pmDEATH TOLL IN IRAQ 1 MILLION READ SKY NEWS HERE
according to my calculations thats 4.54% of Iraq been Killed
America has bettered this in
East Timor with a 1/3–1/2 of total population….
Korea 4 million dead…..
Indonesia 1 million dead…..
Cambodia 1 million dead…..
Congo 2 million dead…..
Vietnam 1.5 million dead….
http://www.robert-fisk.com/robert_elias_25sept2001.htm
March 18th, 2007 at 5:03 pmDid you see my posts above how I am grateful this particular Rear Admiral is retired?
Comment by Jake
Yes I did, Jake. Your point?
March 18th, 2007 at 5:09 pmI didn’t say he didn’t know about military issues. I said he did what politicians do…he deflects and starts to talk about something else.
Comment by Tracy
Weasel words, Tracy. You didn’t even know who he was, as proved by your reference to him as the “second twit.”
March 18th, 2007 at 5:10 pmSo, you are saying that Saddam would NEVER have given WMD to terrorists?
Comment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
Well first he’d have to have some WMD now wouldn’t he?
:|
Numbskull.
But the really pathetic reality of your bumbling uneducated neocon talking point statement, is that you, like your idiot President, just don’t know a damned thing about Iraq, their people or their politics.
If you did, you’d know Saddam was a Baathist. Baathists are an enemy to fundementalist muslims Einstein.
:|
Fundementailist muslims kill Baathists.
Baathists imprison, torture and kill fundementalist muslims.
Baathists like money, technology and secularism.
Fundementalist muslims like beards and sandals.
If you weren’t so trailer park inbred stupid, like the rest of the idiots who think like you, you’d know that, and you’d know that IF Saddam HAD gotten some WMD, then he would USE them on Al Quaida, before he’d give them to Al Quaida.
Got any other bright ideas nimrod?
March 18th, 2007 at 5:11 pmI simply trust him more than your side trusted Saddam, that’s all.
Comment by Jake
My side?? To understand my side to have to be a critic person. So please, it is really laughable your attempt to make me mad when you say I trusted Saddam. In any case, you probably must be talking about Rumsfeld “give me your hand, pal” former SoD.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:13 pm…the “rapist†will be done no later than January 20, 2009. Just lay back and enjoy.
@ 4:58 pm
ok – if anyone, anyone, ever again gives this pile of shite any kind of acknowledgement ever again, i will have no reason but to think that that person is also a misogynistic, chauvenistic, braindead, treasonous, bigotted, stoopid, unpatriotic, the list goes on idjit.
…
except for worfeus… and big papa… and…
aww… whatever…
such a lying waste of space…
March 18th, 2007 at 5:16 pm.
I’ve never said that Bush has never been wrong. I simply trust him more than your side trusted Saddam, that’s all.
Comment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
I wouldn’t trust Saddam or Bush.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:17 pmAnd you know what the other really pathetic reality of your idiotic statement is Jake?
There are LOTS of countries that ARE giving weapons to terrorist nations.
In fact, we intercepted a boatload of missle casings being sent to Yemmin from North Korea not to long back. And then North Korea built and exploded their OWN nukes, in open defiance to your mighty king George. He laughed in the face of America, and the UN, and launched nukes, and is still developing and testing them.
And what did your little Texas wimp do when we found someone actually had WMD?
Not a goddamned thing.
Thats what he did.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:17 pmJake,
March 18th, 2007 at 5:18 pmMy detective bureau has determined that you first married 59 years ago. Subtract 7 from 59 and you arrive at 52 – the time that you state that you have been happiy married. Is your spouse merely dispirited or in total denial?
Provide evidence that proves elsewise. I also have your career profile – I will not post that as soon as you become truthful.
#136
“Your argument is like a rapist looking up to the cops and saying, “How is pulling out going to help this womans situation?—
Perfect! That’s a great description of EXACTLY what Saddam was doing to the Iraqi people…for 30 years. The cops you refer to was the coalition that caught the rapist, got him off of the victim, and then disposed of him.
“What the Iraqis do with their “situation†really isnt any of our business.”
That’s your opinion.
“IF Bush had went after Osama in Pakistan…”
That line of thinking is for those who actually think that getting bin Laden would have or will make a huge difference in the al Qaeda’s operations. BTW the guy planned 9/11 is in jail right now. Bin Laden is little fish compared to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
“And it is far past time to pick up the ball they dropped and get about winning over all the people that could become terrorists one day on our side as friends and intelligently and deliberately making the changes neccessary…”
If you don’t confront the militant Islamic teaching going on in those countries buy promoting democratic political change then it isn’t going to happen.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:18 pmI think I will trust our President more than your trusted Saddam.
Comment by Joke — March 18, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
Yea?
Well in that case I have some real nice vacation property that I’d like you to take a look at.
:|
Its waterfront property.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:20 pm#140
That would make sense if the U.S. goal in Iraq was to take over the country and make it part of the U.S. like the Soviets wanted to do in the 1980s.
Can you point to where another letter states that al Qaedas goal or one of it’s goals is the keep us in Iraq? Please step up to the plate and post the letter VVGFU is referring to.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:22 pmMistress Z:
My “point” was that I didn’t want to find those and re-post them just for you. I also think the retired Rear Admiral is a CURRENT politican, so you might want to apologize to Tracy.
The Artist Formerly Known as WORFEUS:
Every intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMD. I guess you are so smart, though, to have known better. You probably didn’t think Saddam supported ANY terrorists, anywhere in the world, right? Did you read Charles Duelfer’s report?
Juan C:
If everyone can call me a Republican, then I can confidently include you with those who think Saddam would never have given terrorists WMD.
Nat:
We agree on Saddam at least.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:24 pm#147
I knew exactly who he was I watched the interview on Meet the Press, not the little sound bite TP played. Just because he’s retired military doen’t mean he isn’t a twit.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:26 pmSo why do we have Perle, a war criminal on TV? Why isn’t Tom DeLay in jail? It’s amazing that Meet the Press would have Perle and DeLay, both criminals with no credibility support the neocon lies on their show.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:26 pmBush is planning on helping his new best friend Libya’s Muammar Ghaddaffi develop a nuclear program.
The same Ghaddaffi that helped bomb the Pan Am plane over Lockerbie Scotland.
Way to reward the terrorists George W.
-GSD
March 18th, 2007 at 5:27 pmHey Jake, were you able to make it to Iraq or did you cut and run?
March 18th, 2007 at 5:27 pmThat’s a great description of EXACTLY what Saddam was doing to the Iraqi people…for 30 years.
Comment by Tracy
You probably have to thank Reagan and the CIA for those wonderful years, Tracy.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:28 pmTo some degree but I place 99% of the blame Saddam and the Baathists.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:32 pmThe Artist Formerly Known as WORFEUS:
Actually, North Korea has signed a verifiable agreement about their nukes, but yes you point out even another reason why it was important to stop Saddam BEFORE he got nukes. I don’t need vacation property, thanks though.
WaltTheMan:
Your “detective bureau” is wrong — we’ve been married only 52 years, and my spouse is neither merely dispirited or in total denial. Next question?
March 18th, 2007 at 5:32 pmWell, tracy, that “second twit” won by a landslide over a long time incumbant in a district that has a Republic majority. That’s more than can be said about DeLay and his delayed prison sentence.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:33 pmCoffinsDrapedWithFlags:
I neither made it to Iraq nor did I cut and run.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:34 pmEvery intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMD.
Comment by Jerk — March 18, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
No they didn’t Oppenhiemer. They said just the opposite.
But if you really believe that, then I’d really like you to take a look at these lots I have for sale.
They’re real nice.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:34 pm“Perfect! That’s a great description of EXACTLY what Saddam was doing to the Iraqi people…for 30 years. The cops you refer to was the coalition that caught the rapist, got him off of the victim, and then disposed of him.”
Both the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations supported Saddam through much of reign of terror. And when Bush 41 finally felt that Saddam was of no use to him, he convinced the Shiites to rise up against Saddam and we would support them. When the time came to help the Shiites, Bush 41 turned his back on them and watched as the Shiites were slaughtered by Saddam.
“That line of thinking is for those who actually think that getting bin Laden would have or will make a huge difference in the al Qaeda’s operations. BTW the guy planned 9/11 is in jail right now. Bin Laden is little fish compared to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.”
Zawahiri and Bin Laden are the big fishes. Their way thinking has become an ideology to people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
“If you don’t confront the militant Islamic teaching going on in those countries buy promoting democratic political change then it isn’t going to happen.
Comment by Tracy — March 18, 2007 @ 5:18 pm”
Then we should be in Saudi Arabia.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:35 pmDon’t worry, Gerald Gibson Jr ., the “rapist†will be done no later than January 20, 2009. Just lay back and enjoy.
Comment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Do you think this is funny, Jake?
You owe an apology to everyone on this blog, especially the women.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:36 pmNat:
We agree on Saddam at least.
Comment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
I would say that Bush is a bigger threat to America than Saddam ever was.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:37 pmActually, North Korea has signed a verifiable agreement about their nukes,
Comment by Joke — March 18, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
What are you an idiot?
Here, let me spell it out for you.
THEY EXPLODED THEIR NUKES!
:|
That means the little bombs went “KABOOM”.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:37 pmPerfect! That’s a great description of EXACTLY what Saddam was doing to the Iraqi people…for 30 years. The cops you refer to was the coalition that caught the rapist, got him off of the victim, and then disposed of him.
Comment by Tracy
We are not the cops of Iraq. Iraqis didnt save America from the King of England now did they?
That’s your opinion.
Comment by Tracy
No it is basic decency. The rapist may feel ashamed for what he did but he has no right to try to make it all better… he just goes to jail.
That line of thinking is for those who actually think that getting bin Laden would have or will make a huge difference in the al Qaeda’s operations. BTW the guy planned 9/11 is in jail right now. Bin Laden is little fish compared to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Comment by Tracy
On a post a couple days ago I said that the A-Z thing was the right wingers trying to make KSM look more important than Osama so they dont look like total failures ..at least in their own minds…. Osama is the poster child for standing up to America not KSM… try again.
If you don’t confront the militant Islamic teaching going on in those countries buy promoting democratic political change then it isn’t going to happen.
Comment by Tracy
Bombing people that had nothing to do with 911 is NOT “promoting democratic political change” .. it actually encourages people to kill Americans where ever they are found. There was a special on PBS I think the other day that was made by Ted Koppel maybe… anyway they showed what America SHOULD be doing and has been doing in small order in Africa. Putting in wells, providing medical assistance, etc… so that the people learn to hate terrorists and love Americans. Iraq has done the exact opposite of this… but Bush was not focused on this or even Al Qeada was he? Nope. While the military WAS doing these things Bush was concetrating on Iraq…. too bad Bush wasnt helping the military do these things in a bigger way … and save the violence for smaller actions like predator missles up the tail pipes of every terrorist leader the CIA can find.
Instead the GOP in this country has validated the argument of Osama in the worlds eyes… the ONLY part of the writings of Osama that they seem to care about is where Osama said Americas penis is smaller than his…. and the inbred right wingers (right on Osamas que) stand up screaming.. “Oh Ya!!!! Watch this!” … and away we go into Iraq…. so easy it was for Osama to take Bush by the nose and lead him straight into Iraq…
March 18th, 2007 at 5:42 pmActually, North Korea has signed a verifiable agreement about their nukes, but yes you point out even another reason why it was important to stop Saddam BEFORE he got nukes. I don’t need vacation property, thanks though.
Comment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
-It’s the same deal Clinton had. If Bush would have just stayed with the plan in the first place, North Korea would not be in possession of nuclear weapons today.
-Saddam didn’t have a nuclear program.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:42 pm4 years ago when Kim Jong Il told us he was going to build and test nukes, WHAT did Bush do?
Come on Oppenheimer, what did Bush do?
What did Bush do 4 years ago when North Korea openly defied the UN and told us that not only did he have a nuclear program, but was going to start developing bombs, what did your little tyrant do?
Tell us genius?
What did he do to stop them from developing nukes?
March 18th, 2007 at 5:42 pmAnyone, regardless of age or gender, that supports this war needs to get their arse over to Iraq and relieve our overstretched military, you know, the ones that have been in Iraq for over a year and the ones that have had several deployments. Show your courage… don’t cut and run… get over there… Bush said the sacrifice is worth it. I’ll place a yellow ribbon magnet on my car to show that I support you. You are wasting your time posting comments to TP… go fight that battle and maybe you will be lucky and not return home in a flagged draped coffin like over 3200 Americans have.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:43 pmBecause last I checked genuis, someone was dropping nukes in the sea of Japan.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:43 pmThat would make sense if the U.S. goal in Iraq was to take over the country and make it part of the U.S. like the Soviets wanted to do in the 1980s.
Can you point to where another letter states that al Qaedas goal or one of it’s goals is the keep us in Iraq? Please step up to the plate and post the letter VVGFU is referring to.
Comment by Tracy
I dont know about any letter and I dont care. Colonialism does the same thing as what the Soviets were doing… exept in colonialism you let the people keep their own country in name only. In reallity your military bases are the real power and the people that live there do what you want or they die… that isnt any better than what the USSR was doing… and the people of Iraq know it. They wont accept us EVER … anymore than we would them here.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:44 pmMistress Z:
I don’t owe anyone here anything.
Nat:
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.
WORFEUS:
North Korea has agreed to give up their nuclear weapon program, did you not hear about that yet?
March 18th, 2007 at 5:45 pmNat and WORFEUS:
It is NOT the same plan as Clinton’s — maybe if Nico starts a thread about North Korea, we can discuss that topic in depth.
CoffinsDrapedWithFlags:
Regardless of what you want, the military is not sending 75 year olds to battle ; )
March 18th, 2007 at 5:48 pmMistress Z:
I don’t owe anyone here anything.
Jake likes to make jokes about rape:
Don’t worry, Gerald Gibson Jr ., the “rapist†will be done no later than January 20, 2009. Just lay back and enjoy.
Comment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
F*CKING HILARIOUS, RIGHT?
March 18th, 2007 at 5:48 pmIf everyone can call me a Republican, then I can confidently include you with those who think Saddam would never have given terrorists WMD.
Comment by Jake
I dont care if you are the Pope. You are not just wrong and misled. You are a murderer supporter and I would bet that you are a Christian, a Jewish or a Muslim. Those religions seem to be just fine about killing people. The only WMDs Saddam ever had said: Made in USA. They were given to him by the Reagan Administration while Iraq was taken out from the terrorist supporter country. Thats how definition of terrorism works: if you buy weapons from US, you are a champion of democracy and stability. You dont then you are a terrible, mad man and evil doer.
I dont think you are a republican. Conservatives are not running your country anymore, they are national extremists who favor corporation interests above everything, you should have figured that out by now.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:50 pmAnd btw Jake the Genius.
I did read the Duelfer report. About 3 years ago.
Apparently you have not.
Because Duelfer concluded Saddam did NOT have WMD.
All he concluded was that Saddam was “thinking about them”. and he, like your coward in Chief, thought that was enough reason to waste thousands of human lives.
Like you, he was a coward.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:50 pmJake said:
North Korea has agreed to give up their nuclear weapon program, did you not hear about that yet?
Why Jake, that must be the first time I’ve heard an ardent neocon Bushiite be so trusting of N. Korea’s words and agreements on anything. How shocking………
March 18th, 2007 at 5:51 pmI am always somewhat skeptical of these polls out of Iraq, but still this is interesting:
March 18, 2007
Iraqis: life is getting better
Marie Colvin
Times of London
MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.
The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.
One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:51 pmOnly 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.
The neo-cons have “cut and run” from being members of the human race.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:51 pmNorth Korea has agreed to give up their nuclear weapon program, did you not hear about that yet?
Comment by Joke — March 18, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
Of course they did genius. In exchange for the money and other things they asked for 4 years ago when they threatened to start building them.
You remember. Bush scoffed at them, and said “we won’t negotiate with them under threats”.
So then, they went ahead, for the first time in history they developed Nuclear bombs, then they BLEW UP some nuclear bombs, and NOW, AFTER they HAVE nuclear weapons, the idiot Bush is giving then WHAT THEY ASKED FOR FOUR YEARS AGO.
How stupid do you have to be to know that that is a failure?
How dirt dumb inbred trailer park stupid, do you have to be, to not know that giving them what they asked for BEFORE they built the bombs, might have made just a little more sense?
:|
It boggles the mind.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:56 pmOnly 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.
Comment by Exley
We know exley… they see it as a holy war. To the outside world we call it a civil war.
I have lately been watching video interviews of Iraqis on the street… they seemed to think things were better with Saddam…. though I guess a couple people with blood all over them after scooping up dead children with their hands might be a bit biased …
March 18th, 2007 at 5:56 pmNat and WORFEUS:
It is NOT the same plan as Clinton’s — maybe if Nico starts a thread about North Korea, we can discuss that topic in depth.
Comment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
Wasn’t the gist of Clinton’s plan to give economic aid to North Korea in exchange for not producing nuclear weapons? Isn’t the gist of Bush’s plan to give economic aid to North Korea in exchange for not producing anymore nuclear weapons?
March 18th, 2007 at 6:01 pmWhat’s an indicted criminal like Tom DeLay acting like he has any credibility at all and appearing on a talk show panel? That just goes to show you how “low” these antiquated news outlets will go….anything for senationalism these days, I guess.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:02 pmMisterOpus1:
A big difference is that this agreement is verifiable.
WORFEUS:
As I said, if Nico starts a thread on North Korea, then we can get into all the minute details how the agreement is NOT what they were demanding 4 years ago. Until then, would you like to discuss the Sestak, Andrews, DeLay and Perle debate on MTP this morning?
March 18th, 2007 at 6:03 pmP.S. Nat – no.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:04 pmNAT, his talking about Clintons plan is just a red herring. Clintons plan is not in question here.
Bush was told 4 years ago by Kim Jong Ill that they needed money and other support, and if they didn’t get it they’d build nuclear bombs.
What did Bush do?
He “talked tough”, and then he did NOTHING.
Not a damned thing.
Now, 4 years later, Kim Jong Ill HAS BUILT AND TESTED nuclear weapons and little George Bush is reduced to giving him what he asked for 4 YEARS ago to try to get him to stop.
:|
It boggles the mind.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:08 pmJake,
Got anymore rape jokes?
March 18th, 2007 at 6:09 pmGeorge Washington cut and ran? Good lord, how Un-American are the Republicans???
March 18th, 2007 at 6:10 pmJake, Thanks for making me laugh. You can’t win the aurguement so you decide to make fun of me (your words) I know you are above personal attacks and all.HAHAHAHAHA!
March 18th, 2007 at 6:11 pmOn meet the press, Tom Delay said things weren’t going that well in Iraq, because we were fighting a NEW kind of war. Did he sleep through the Viet Nam War??? That was also a classic guerilla war, where we couldn’t tell innocent civilians from the enemy. It was also a civil war that lost the support of the American people.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:13 pmYou’re welcome, though.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:16 pmA big difference is that this agreement is verifiable.
Just like Clinton’s plan was verifiable…..until Bush claimed N. Korea being part of the “Axis of Evil”, Bolton making an arse out of himself and straining any relations we had, and then N. Korea kicking weapons inspectors out.
Oh, but all of the sudden, THIS plan trumped up by Bush is MORE verifiable, because it’s soooo much different than before. Got it, champ.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:17 pmTracy’s talking points:
Here’s the truth —
Was Saddam Hussein really the ruthless tyrant that American moralists claim he was?
March 18th, 2007 at 6:19 pmComment by Exley — March 18, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
Where’s the links Exlax???
Dumba$$!!
March 18th, 2007 at 6:21 pmBush was told 4 years ago by Kim Jong Ill that they needed money and other support, and if they didn’t get it they’d build nuclear bombs.
What did Bush do?
He “talked toughâ€, and then he did NOTHING.
Comment by The Artist Formerly Known as WORFEUS — March 18, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
I said earlier that if Bush would have stayed with the Clinton’s plan, North Korea would not be in possession of nuclear weapons today I think (you never know with this administration).
March 18th, 2007 at 6:22 pmOn meet the press, Tom Delay said things weren’t going that well in Iraq, because we were fighting a NEW kind of war. Did he sleep through the Viet Nam War??? That was also a classic guerilla war, where we couldn’t tell innocent civilians from the enemy.
Comment by Badger — March 18, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
Exactly Badger. And there are other older examples of that type of classic guerilla war .
Like the American Revolution.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:24 pmI think Bush stuck a stick in North Korea’s eye, because he needed a reason for his Missile Defense program. And while he had his eyes on North Korean Missiles, we were blindsided by boxcutters.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:24 pmHey, Worfeus…long time, no see!
Good to see you again, buddy! ^_^
March 18th, 2007 at 6:27 pmWell said, Badger & Worfeus.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:27 pmDixieBlood,
Is it really so difficult for you to go to the Times of London Web site and look up the article???? I guess it is. I didn’t mean to tax your apparently minimal Internet searching skills.
Here ya go:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece
March 18th, 2007 at 6:28 pmsaid earlier that if Bush would have stayed with the Clinton’s plan, North Korea would not be in possession of nuclear weapons today I think (you never know with this administration).
Comment by Nat — March 18, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
Oh you’re quite correct NAT.
Everyone on the news was saying all Bush had to do was “a little appeasement” for North Korea. Remember the term “sabre rattling”?
That was a term we heard back in 03 and 04 when Kim Jong Ill started with his threats. Sabre rattling.
And every expert, analysts and offical told Bush all he had to do was give them a little bit, and they’d back off.
What did Bush do though? He said we don’t talk to people who are making demands, and walked away from it.
Now Kim Jong Il HAS nuclear weapons, and NOW Bush wants to talk.
Only an idiot like Jake does not see that all Bush did was show the world that if you HAVE nukes, then we’ll talk. But if you don’t, we will blow the shit out of you.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:30 pmHowdee Tripmaster
March 18th, 2007 at 6:30 pmno time to look it up -
March 18th, 2007 at 6:31 pmis exlies story about the kurds?
seems those people have been spared the wrath of democracy birthing…
Is it really so difficult for you to go to the Times of London Web site and look up the article???? I guess it is. I didn’t mean to tax your apparently minimal Internet searching skills.
Comment by Exley
Exley,
If you’re going to run that shit up the flag pole, you better back it up. I know it’s difficult, but try not to be an ass.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:33 pmneocons, let’s just cut the crap… you know and we all know the real reason we stay in Iraq is so you guys can save face, save Bush, your party, grab the oil and continue to occupy Iraq to oversea the oil. NOT “because if we leave all hell will break loose in Iraq.”
While doing so SCREW the troops right????
March 18th, 2007 at 6:38 pmComment by Exley — March 18, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
I was trying to find some information on the Opinion Research Business because I’ve never heard of them before. I can’t find too much info about them. But what I found interesting about the poll is that one in four who were surveyed has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad but they don’t think there is a civil war.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:39 pmI still think Sestak should have beaten Delay senseless with the microphone.
:D
It would have made for great television.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:40 pmExley sez:
Regardless of how easy or difficult it may be, Exley, the responsibility is still yours. If you are going to advance an argument, it is your responsibility to provide your own corroboration, plain and simple.
Don’t expect us to do your homework for you, Exley…that makes you intellectually lazy at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst. Seixon pulled the same bullsh!t constantly during his tenure here…if I didn’t let him get away with it, what makes you think you’ll get a free pass?
March 18th, 2007 at 6:42 pmO yeah, and now we got Exley going off with some twisted-off bullsh*t.
A million dead, no electricity, no water, cities reduced to rubble and life is now some kinda mo’ bettah? Jeebus H!!!!111, what kind of mysticism is that?
The fool must be nearly fell out to post such specious codswallop.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:44 pmIt didn’t surprise me when tom delay said that in time of war everyone should stop the debate and come together. That just isn’t democracy and therefor tom delay does not even want democracy in America he just wants war in the middle east. He was also quite disrespectful towards the other panel members also, snickering and laughing at their points when his have been proven wrong. Their points also require a thought process which I have determined delay doesn’t have. If Ron Paul never left that district in Texas to begin with we may have never had to see the face of that crook.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:46 pmTEST.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:47 pmI simply trust him more than your side trusted Saddam, that’s all.
I trust George will fulfill his promise to capture Osama,,oh wait he doesn’t care where Osama is. So much for trusting what ‘your side; says. Then again it was your side that ‘trusted’ and shook hands with Saddam and sold him WMD
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040112/scheer1230
The latest example: the release of official documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, that detail how the US government under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush nurtured and supported Saddam Hussein despite his repeated use of chemical weapons.
Jake, don’t go away mad, just you know,, GO.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:47 pmand take your trusted ’side’ with you.
Everytime a neocon tells someone that they want to “surrender” because we want to pull out of Iraq, or everytime they call one of you “cut-n-runner”, or “appeaser”, just look em in the eye and ask them “WHERE’S BIN LADEN”?
March 18th, 2007 at 6:50 pmTEST -Jake
I think perhaps maybe you meant to type PEST.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:51 pmI have a feeling that Iraqi’s answer poll questions VERY CAREFULLY! The joke goes…an AFghan and an Iraqi are asked their opinion of the electricity shortage. The Afghani asks “what is electricity?” The Iraqi asks ” what is an opinion?”
March 18th, 2007 at 6:51 pmHello Zooey, How iz youze today?
March 18th, 2007 at 6:52 pmNice try, TPM….(Actually, not really)….The fact is I provided the publication, the date, and the name of the article. It was readily accessible. I am sorry you don’t like the content of the article. But spare me your whining that it was too difficult to find. I find it amusing that you are claiming it ws too difficult for you to find an article online after you have been given the pub name, the date of publication, the byline, and the name of the article.
In any case, TPM, because it was too hard for some of you folks to find the article, I have provided the link. Enjoy.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:54 pmI think perhaps maybe you meant to type PEST.
Comment by Zep Tepi
Is poor Jake having problems posting comments? Poor thing. He’ll have to find somewhere else to tell his rape jokes.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:55 pmYou know, there were good reasons why Saddam stayed in power for thirty some odd years, and it wasn’t because of the West. Now that all the zio-con fog is starting to dissipate, it turns out that he had a pretty good vision for how to create and sustain a just society.
Read this, do it now:
March 18th, 2007 at 6:55 pmWas Saddam Hussein really the ruthless tyrant that American moralists claim he was?
In fact, it could be a board game.
“Where in the world is Osama Bin Laden?”
We could sell it to neocon households as a learning tool so hopefully one day their kids will find him. Or at least figure out how stupid their parents are. :|
Yea, a board game. Thats the ticket.
“WHERE IN THE WORLD IS OSAMA BIN LADEN”….. by Hasbro….Ages 2 to Republican…
March 18th, 2007 at 6:56 pmHi Zep,
Other than being pissed at the attitude of stupid old man Jake, I’m great! How is your birthday going? :)
March 18th, 2007 at 6:56 pmZep Tepi sez:
Yes, it’s always amusing to hear neocon trolls yammer on about how bad a man Saddam was, when he committed those crimes with the blessings and aid of our own government…
March 18th, 2007 at 6:57 pmZep Tepi:
At least you saw the “test” — my post explaining that the rape analogy was by someone else, not me, keeps getting deleted — for a minute there, I thought I there was some vast left-wing conspiracy under foot ; )
March 18th, 2007 at 6:58 pmOther than being pissed at the attitude of stupid old man Jake, I’m great! How is your birthday going? :)
Comment by Mistress Z
Just great! Jake the circus clown will be here to twist some balloons into shapes and pull a rabbit out of his ‘*ss’
Kidding, lol, I don’t really do birthdays anymore just lounging around doing nothing really.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:00 pmYes, it’s always amusing to hear neocon trolls yammer on about how bad a man Saddam was, when he committed those crimes with the blessings and aid of our own government…
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — March 18, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
Not to mention Saddam got his due.
But people are still dying.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:02 pmYes, it’s always amusing to hear neocon trolls yammer on about how bad a man Saddam was, when he committed those crimes with the blessings and aid of our own government…
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
Indeedly diddly dooo their memory span is almost as long as a Fecks Snooze spin cycle (36 hrs)
March 18th, 2007 at 7:05 pmKidding, lol, I don’t really do birthdays anymore just lounging around doing nothing really.
Comment by Zep Tepi
Sounds like a great birthday, so far. :)
Just don’t let the scary clowns in your house. *shudder*
March 18th, 2007 at 7:05 pmExley must have been Duhlay’s partner in the bug spray biz. That stuff does horrible things to brain tissue…..
March 18th, 2007 at 7:07 pmSo glad to see the artest back…We have missed you…Blessings
March 18th, 2007 at 7:09 pmAfter Saddam gassed the Kurds, our congress was faced with an amendment to reduce their agricultural Aid. They voted it DOWN. And most of the million people killed by Saddams chemical weapons were Iranians, a lot of them just kids. But Iran isn’t supposed to meddle in Iraq, the nation that attacked them.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:10 pmHey Jake,
You’ve got 5 more questions to answer under the Cummins thread that I posted to you. You only answered 1. That is, if you can.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:11 pm#231,
Hey, I wasn’t the one who argued it was too difficult to find an article on The Times on London Web site after being provided the headline of the article, the date, and the byline….It was Dixie Blood, Zooey, and TPM who apparently do not know how to use the Web.
But have no fear. I provided them the link after they told me they were confused as to where to find it. If you are similarly confused, I will provide you the link as well. Here ya go:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ tol/ news/ world/ iraq/ article1530762.ece
March 18th, 2007 at 7:12 pmComment by Exley — March 18, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
That rag is a property of Rupert “MoreDick” Murdock, the facist a$$hole!!! I’m not snowed by you a$$wipe!!!
March 18th, 2007 at 7:14 pmBack atcha Sharon
March 18th, 2007 at 7:15 pmSorry you did not seem them, WC — someone at TP is censoring my posts now.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:15 pmIt was Dixie Blood, Zooey, and TPM who apparently do not know how to use the Web.
Comment by Exley
Don’t you ever again whine about someone not providing a link to back up a story.
If you even tried not to be an ass, you failed. As usual.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:15 pmJust don’t let the scary clowns in your house. *shudder*
Comment by Mistress Z
Mostly those were doing the sunday morning rounds and I couldn’t get one to attend for the pin the tail on the pakiderm game.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:16 pmPerle and Delay – two more war criminals that Madame LeFarge is taking note of in her knitting
March 18th, 2007 at 7:20 pmMostly those were doing the sunday morning rounds and I couldn’t get one to attend for the pin the tail on the pakiderm game.
Comment by Zep Tepi
Those types are whiny poor sports anyway, Zep. No loss.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:22 pmIs Perle back from France for tax purposes, or neocon mediawhoring?
March 18th, 2007 at 7:23 pmBack on topic (hopefully):
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Perle, is the war, war in Iraq worth the price we’ve paid?
MR. RICHARD PERLE: Forgive me for saying it, but I think it’s the wrong question. It’s a bit academic for one thing. But the question is what is in our national interest now, what is going to make Americans safer. I disagree with what we’ve just heard. A defeat in Iraq brought about in the worst instance by precipitous withdrawal would have terrorists around the world celebrating. It is the idea that the United States can be defeated that motivates terrorists. And we have Osama bin Laden himself saying that and saying it repeatedly. So the question the country faces now is not is this a reason–is this a bargain, is it a reasonable price. The question is what do we do. And I think we have to win this war, and I hope that the new strategy that’s been adopted will enable us to do that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17628142/page/3/
March 18th, 2007 at 7:24 pmIt was Dixie Blood, Zooey, and TPM who apparently do not know how to use the Web.
Comment by Exley
Oh yeah, moron!!! I’ve provided more links around here than a pan full of sausages!!! You are a ph*cking useless pig, wasting time and space and DNA and oxygen and water!!! You useless ph*ck!!!
Back up your bullshit up or STFU!!!
When you buy a life from your local bubble gum machine let us all know, otherwise, F*ck Off!!!!
March 18th, 2007 at 7:25 pmZooey,
If someone provides the name of the publication, the date of publication, the byline, and the headline of the article, I do not complain, for, in such cases, the article can be readily located.
Links are sometimes filtered out by TP. Providing all the information necessary to find the article is the equivalent of providing the link (for those who know how to use the Web). But, in any case, I have provided the link for those who seem unable to find it.
(I can’t help but note that while people have initially complained that they did not know how to find the article, now that the link has been provided, few have chosen to comment on the article’s content).
March 18th, 2007 at 7:26 pmExley sez:
Hey, jacka$$.
Reread my earlier post on this subject, and then let me know which part of it escapes your comprehension. I’ll do my best to help you along.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:26 pmMR. RUSSERT: What about to Mr. Perle’s point, if you get out precipitously, you will say to the terrorists all around the world, the United States will not stay and fight, the United States can be defeated on the war on terror?
REP. SESTAK: No. I disagree, with all due respect. The central front of terror is not in Baghdad. Osama bin Laden has not moved there. The central front, as this bill that is in the House is about to come forth, is in Afghanistan, including Southeast Asia. We have to remain in that region and be strong in our bases in Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, on our carrier battle groups there and our amphibious readiness groups. And we have to then take the time and the effort to go where terrorism is, even as Secretary of Defense Gates said, “Those who are causing the violence are almost exclusively those who live in and are citizens of Iraq.” No. We brought this terrorism there. What we need to do– they are such a little–the main elements we now need to focus elsewhere in this world, and that’s why a different strategy that can give us success in Iraq is exactly what’s embedded in the House bill.
FMR. REP. DeLAY: But that–I, I got to tell you, Tim, it, it–from their perspective, they are saying it’s not a central front, but if you listen to the terrorists and you look at what the terrorists themselves are saying, they claim that Iraq is the central front on the–on the war on terror. We are fighting them, we are going after them where we can find them. Some say that the terrorists are coming to us because we’re in Iraq. Wouldn’t it be better–isn’t it better to fight them there than over here or spread out all over the world? They’re coming to fight us there. We are killing–and if you put up the chart of how many terrorists we are killing and how many terrorists we are capturing and how much information we are getting in this war, it, it, it would be a legitimate comparison.
And the biggest question here is, sort of what Richard said, what these two gentlemen fail to understand is the question of then what. Then what? The admiral says, “I want to fight them all over the world.” Yeah, we’re–we are fighting them all over the world now. It’s not–we–we’ve got people all over the world, in Indonesia, even in Europe and other places, in Africa and others, that we are–we are fighting these terrorists. But the point is, is that it is a central front in a larger war. It’s not segregated by Afghanistan, Iraq, Indonesia. It’s a new kind of war that we are fighting. And, yes, we’re learning how to fight that war. But to pull out and just surrender because it’s tough and it’s hard is, is not going to support the national security of this country.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17628142/page/4/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17628142/page/5/
March 18th, 2007 at 7:27 pmComment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
Richard Perle represents the interest of ISRAEL and only ISRAEL!!! He’s an enemy of the state!!!!!
March 18th, 2007 at 7:29 pmForgive me for saying it, but I think it’s the wrong question. It’s a bit academic for one thing. But the question is what is in our national interest now, what is going to make Americans safer.
Of course he calls it ‘a bit academic’ – that’s all that whore knows is academic – when confronted with questions about ‘war’ and ‘price.’
And Jake you can bet your right-wing nazi ass that Mr Perle and his co-conspirators are making us much less secure. MUCH LESS SECURE – and murdering our children, our soldiers in the bargain.
Go F yourself Jake. You and the rest of your neo-con slime. you are the traitors destroying this country. ANd why Jake.
Why? Why? Why? Cause your mother didn’t love you Jake. Or your daddy beat you too many times. Or maybe you don’t feel like a man, or you wonder if you’re gay. That’s no reason to support the murder of millions. Or maybe that’s what you read in the young-nazi literature you receive every Sunday from your minister along with a good ass banging.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:29 pmSome people complained about FDR making Africa the “central front” during WWII — Algeria never attacked us, for God’s sake!!!
March 18th, 2007 at 7:30 pm#246 – Exley
Go peddle your patronizing clap trap somewhere else.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:32 pmMR. PERLE: Well, I think it is certainly true that setting a date certain would alter the leverage. Unfortunately, it would alter it in favor of the terrorists. If they know that we’re going to leave on a date certain, they will adjust their strategies to take full advantage of that. You have a military career. If you knew the enemy, your enemy was going to retire from the field, wouldn’t it affect your strategy, your planning? Of course it will. What a date certain will do is guarantee the defeat to the United States’ effort in Iraq. Guarantee it!
. . .
MR. PERLE: The shift in strategy is, what, about 30 days old? You’re not going to give it a chance.
REP. SESTAK: We did.
MR. PERLE: You want to say now, before we contest, whether this refocus on bringing some measure of security to urban areas in Iraq, beginning with Baghdad, you want to write this off 30 days into it. That is not the best way to, to develop a strategy.
. . .
FMR. REP. DeLAY: You’ve got a bill that you introduced, and let’s just take a look at it. You said redeploy in any regions all over the world, including, if you can’t get anybody else to accept you, you go back home to the United States. Now, that is a military strategy? First of all, have you asked any countries in the region that they would accept us in the redeployment? Because if you did, you would– you would find a no. And the second is, then you say in your bill, only our special forces and our planes can go in, in and out. Do you think that that is going to create any sort of stability and security, where we’re sending in strategic forces into Iraq, in and out?
FMR. REP. ANDREWS: It was–no…
FMR. REP. DeLAY: It is absolutely crazy.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:32 pmJake
March 18th, 2007 at 7:33 pmWhy do you hate this country?
According to Exley, this is progress:
One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:34 pmJake
March 18th, 2007 at 7:36 pmWhy do you hate our soldiers?
MR. PERLE: Well, no. I think–I think Saddam Hussein posed a threat that had to be dealt with, and I think the decision to remove him was a correct decision. I think there were lots of things subsequent to his removal that might well have been–should have been done differently. But the fact is he posed a threat. Let me quote–I don’t usually quote Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, but on this occasion I will. These are his words. “The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.” This was not an eccentric view. This was certainly not a Republican view. It was a widely accepted view . . . Remember Vice President Gore? I’m quoting him. “We know that Saddam has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout the country. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Tim, we went into Iraq to defend this country against the threat that, after 9/11, we understood to be an intolerable threat. That is that Saddam Hussein, with a history of weapons of mass destruction, with known ties to terrorists, might use that weapons capability by placing it in the hand of terrorists. We were right to take that threat seriously. Now we find we’re in a difficult situation, and it makes no sense to abandon this fight without giving the new strategy a chance to succeed. It’s accepting defeat unnecessarily, and it will be a catastrophe in the continuing war against terrorists who want to destroy us.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17628142/page/6/
March 18th, 2007 at 7:36 pmWow, Exleys post makes Jakes post wrong and Jakes post makes Exleys wrong.
Mwah
March 18th, 2007 at 7:36 pmComment by Jake — March 18, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
You are truly are a complete and perfectly formed MORON!! A true spectacle of IDIOTIC perfection!! Would you be willing to live at the Smithsonian as a perfect specimen of STUPIDITY??? Just asking…Your country needs you!!!
March 18th, 2007 at 7:37 pmJake why do you hate our country and our soldiers?
March 18th, 2007 at 7:37 pmChildrenofLir:
I do not hate this country. I am posting excerpts from the MTP transcript on a thread about this morning’s MTP debate with Sestak, Andrews, DeLay and Perle. Quoting transcripts now = hating the country?!
March 18th, 2007 at 7:38 pmRE: #195
“On Meet the Press, Tom Delay said things weren’t going that well in Iraq, because we were fighting a NEW kind of war”
Badger’s response to this crock is correct.
But Delay and Perle also slept through early 2003 as well.
This war is not a “new kind of war.” The US Army War College was able to accurately predict exactly what it would be like in Feb. of 2003.
Some of their conclusions:
The administration of an Iraqi occupation will be complicated by deep religious, ethnic, tribal differences which dominate Iraqi society.
U.S. forces may have to manage and adjudicate conflicts among Iraqis that they can barely comprehend.
An exit strategy will require the establishment of political stability, which will be difficult to achieve given Iraq’s fragmented population, weak political institutions, and propensity for rule by violence.
The report also warned of severe security difficulties.
Let’s see.
If you take the “deep religious, ethnic, tribal differences which dominate Iraqi society” and add “severe security difficulties” you get … modern day Iraq.
Go read it for yourselves.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB182.pdf
(page 7 of 84)
You Delay and Perle supporters should write them and let them know that they failed to support the troops when they choose to ignore this well thought out analysis by the military. All of the “support the troops” posturing done by Delay and Perle ever since the Iraq invasion is just an act. Shame on anyone who is still falling for this pathetic dog and pony routine.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:40 pmNo thanks, dixie blood. Here’s the last excerpt I will post from MTP. I think it is clear that Perle and DeLay won this debate:
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Delay, you raise an interesting point in an interview–in your political column. You talked about congressmen advocating withdrawal, and you conclude by saying, “Yes, I am questioning their patriotism.” Why is that?
FMR. REP. DeLAY: Well, I–it, it is my opinion that when you go to war, we ought to all come together. You can debate going to war, that’s a legitimate debate. But once you have our soldiers and our, our young people dying on the battlefield, we should come together, and we shouldn’t have what we had yesterday on the Mall of, of, of–in Washington, D.C. When the–those are not, in my mind–my opinion, patriots that are talking about impeaching the commander in chief, that are–that are–work as, as Tom’s group works….
MR. RUSSERT: But setting a date for–is setting a date for withdrawal…
FMR. REP. DeLAY: …every step of the day, undermine–I think it’s aiding and abetting the enemy. When you tell the enemy what your strategy is, that’s aiding and abetting the enemy because they can use that strategy to come back and harm your soldiers.
. . .
MR. RUSSERT: To be continued. “No Retreat, No Surrender” is your book, Congressman DeLay. Some interesting things about Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, George Bush in this book that…
FMR. REP. DeLAY: It’s history as I lived it.
MR. RUSSERT: Tom DeLay, thank you very much.
FMR. REP. DeLAY: Thank you.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:40 pmDeJa Vu….We haven’t learned a damn thing from history. Q. How do we get out of Viet Nam? A. By Boat! Q. Then What? A. Viet Nam joins the WTO 30 years later, and is set to be the second largest economy in Asia. Q. But what about the Bloodbath in Cambodia? A. Cambodia was a very peacefull country until Nixon’s secret bombing campaign destroyed their country. Q . And who put an end to the Bloodbath? A. Viet Nam.!
March 18th, 2007 at 7:40 pmJake
March 18th, 2007 at 7:40 pmYou do hate this country. Everything you support undermines our security and our soldiers.
Okay Jake and Exley which is it? If Iraqi’s say things are better off under Maliki then why is Delay saying it’s the central front on terror. If things are better now than under Saddam than why not redeploy? And if things are going so swimmingly why did Bechtel pull out and not finish the projects, such as Laura Bush hospital, they had started. And if things are so great why the surge?
Okay the debate is now between Exley and Jake. Heh.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:40 pmfew have chosen to comment on the article’s content).
Comment by Exley — March 18, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
i’ll go there, real quick…
the story, like the “poll”, sounded much too ambiguous… at the least…
March 18th, 2007 at 7:41 pmand now that dixie has refreshed my memory as to that paper’s ownership, i fully understand the whys…
Jake, it’s amazing how you are driving your own coffin nails here. Everything Perle has said is demonstrably wrong. Do you need for me to break it out for you item-by-item?
March 18th, 2007 at 7:41 pmWow, Exleys post makes Jakes post wrong and Jakes post makes Exleys wrong.
Mwah
Comment by Zep Tepi
They are in perfect balance. :D
March 18th, 2007 at 7:41 pmActually, Steve J., I did not say it was progress. I simply provided an article regarding a poll that found “most Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today [and] when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.”
I guess you, like Zooey and TPM, did not see that (or, are pretending they did not see it). I am happy to point it out to you.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:41 pm#168
“When the time came to help the Shiites, Bush 41 turned his back on them and watched as the Shiites were slaughtered by Saddam.”
And I agree that was total crap on Bush Sr.’s part.
“Zawahiri and Bin Laden are the big fishes.”
I hold those that carry out and plan the operations higher on the threat meter than those who are the “face” of the movement. In fact bin Laden and/or Zawahiri being taken out would only makethem a martyrs.
“Then we should be in Saudi Arabia.”
You are right, but think of the moderate Muslims going ballistic if we put one foot in Mecca. This has to be done incrementally and on the periphery.
“Their way thinking has become an ideology to people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.”
This guy was engaged in planning and carrying out terrorist attacks before bin Laden was even known as a international terrorist.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:43 pmUh-oh, I think Jake is due for his afternoon meds. Can someone ring his nurse?
He’s typing nonsense and cutting-and-pasting quotes from disgraced neocons in what appears to be some weird way of making a point. Almost as if Tom Delay and Richard perle should be treated as authorities on foreign policy (or anything).
Gotta admire his spunk, though. Jake’s a-shakin’ and a-twitchin’ from under-medication but he still game pecks away at the keyboard.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:43 pmJake
You are a neo-con nazi supporter of Bush’s policies – his criminal policies that undermine the security of our soldiers, and our country.
Bush is selling out this country for money from his Saudi butt-fkers. And you support him.
Ergo, you hate this country.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:44 pmThey are in perfect balance. :D
Comment by Mistress Z
They have flip flopped so many times they don’t even know what they are saying anymore. =)
March 18th, 2007 at 7:45 pm#266,
Katy, Thank you for addressing the content of the poll story, rather than going off on some diversion like the Mistress and TPM.
I agree with you that these polls out of Iraq are ambiguous. Like I said in my initial posting, “I am always somewhat skeptical of these polls out of Iraq.”
March 18th, 2007 at 7:47 pm#176
“In reallity your military bases are the real power and the people that live there do what you want or they die… that isnt any better than what the USSR was doing… and the people of Iraq know it.”
So you are equating what we are attempting to do in Iraq with the USSR’s attempt to make Afghanistan a part of their empire? I am sure the troops would love to hear that from you considering it’s total BS and the fact that you have zero proof to back it up.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:49 pmSo you are equating what we are attempting to do in Iraq with the USSR’s attempt to make Afghanistan a part of their empire? I am sure the troops would love to hear that from you considering it’s total BS and the fact that you have zero proof to back it up.
Tracy – Bush’s policies are just as imperialist and hegemonistic as the Russians, and we have even less right in terms of geography. At least the Russians border the area. We are thousands of miles away.
But to imperialists like yourself, geography is meaningless, probably because you barely know where you are, much less where Afghanistan is.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:52 pmSo you are equating what we are attempting to do in Iraq
And just what are we ATTEMPTING to do in Iraq, pray tell, besides hijack their oil reserves.
It’s a criminal endeavor no matter how you try to pretty it up Tracey.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:53 pmThey have flip flopped so many times they don’t even know what they are saying anymore. =)
Comment by Zep Tepi
It’s just nice to see them playing so well together. I can think of no two who deserve each other more.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:57 pmEXLEY -
Somehow you failed to mention that ” More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces. “
March 18th, 2007 at 7:57 pmExley sez:
Your lies are falling short, as usual, Exley.
If you would examine my original post to you, it’s plain to see that all I was taking you to task for was your attempt to shift the onus for providing corroborating links for your arguments onto your opponents. This is a tactic commonly used by trolls such as yourself, who are more interested in derailing debate than you are in participating in it.
All I did was call you on that tactic, and now you’ve managed to include me as a general opponent in this discussion.
Exley, your dance card is full enough with everyone else…there’s no need for me to weigh in here. Your attempt to draw me in is just another tried and true troll tactic, designed to confuse the dialog as much as possible. Like your last tactic, I’m not going to let you get away with this one, either.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:58 pm#198
Are you serious? Is anyone here going to call BS on this crap. I will bet NO ONE in this blog has the guts to.
March 18th, 2007 at 7:59 pmExley sez:
Trying just as hard as you can to work me into every response, aren’t you?
I call bullshit. If you were actually concerned about ‘diversions’, you wouldn’t have tried to make your opponents do your own homework in the first place. Give it up.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:00 pmTracey
March 18th, 2007 at 8:01 pmAre you serious? Why do you neo-cons hate America so much?
“I am always somewhat skeptical of these polls out of Iraq.†Comment by Exley
I’m pretty skeptical of a disgraced politician like Delay who doesn’t even know where US bases are. Yet he knows what the terrorists are saying while ignoring the poll Exley posted.
Could you and Jake maybe find a cat litter box to play around in?
March 18th, 2007 at 8:02 pmHey Jake?
Where did you leave your brain? ‘Fess up! Was it the barn or the feed shed?
Damnit! I ain’t got time goin’ ’round lookin’ for your brain again!! You need to keep track of it yourself moron!!!
Jeez…good peckerwood’s is hard to find now days!!!
March 18th, 2007 at 8:02 pm#223
“Now that all the zio-con fog is starting to dissipate, it turns out that he had a pretty good vision for how to create and sustain a just society.”
Now please defend Hitler and Attila the Hun, you should be good at it.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:05 pmTPM,
I applaud your decision to stop posting regarding your silly strawman that by providing the name of the publication, the date of publication (today), the byline, and the headline of the article, I was somehow trying to hide the source and full content of the article.
You have obviously realized how inane your argument is and your decision to cease is most wise.
I can’t help but notice, however, that other than your numerous and easily dismissed attempts at diversion, you have not once addressed the content of the article or the poll. Such evasion is quite typical of you, however. If you now wish to discuss the content of the article, please feel free to do so.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:05 pmWhy do neo-cons like Jake, Exley, and Tracey hate America so much?
March 18th, 2007 at 8:06 pmWhy do neo-cons like Jake, Exley, and Tracey hate America so much?
Comment by ChildrenofLir — March 18, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
:|
Because we won’t let our soldiers goosestep?
March 18th, 2007 at 8:11 pm#276
“Tracy – Bush’s policies are just as imperialist and hegemonistic as the Russians”
Explain and provide proof that the U.S. intends to make Iraq part of the empire of the U.S.
“But to imperialists like yourself, geography is meaningless, probably because you barely know where you are, much less where Afghanistan is.”
I know more about geography than you do. Do even.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:12 pm#286.. Tracy . I’m sure none of us went to Baghdad to shake Saddam’s hand….that was Rumsfeld.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:12 pmI can’t help but notice, however, that other than your numerous and easily dismissed attempts at diversion, you have not once addressed the content of the article or the poll. Such evasion is quite typical of you, however. If you now wish to discuss the content of the article, please feel free to do so. Comment by Exley — March 18, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
You and the rest of your GOP idiots, accuse others of *diversion* and dishonesty? That takes b*lls, skippy! Considering you’re a d*ckless wonder, I guess b*lls are all you have? Why don’t you put them to work in Iraq, instead of only pushing them on an anonymous blog where you don’t have to risk them – coward?
March 18th, 2007 at 8:12 pmBecause we outlawed lynching gay people?
March 18th, 2007 at 8:13 pmExplain and provide proof that the U.S. intends to make Iraq part of the empire of the U.S.Comment by Tracy — March 18, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
Iraq now has the largest and most expensive base the US as ever built?
I know more about geography than you do. Do even.
Comment by Tracy — March 18, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
Doubtful – moron.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:13 pmTracey
Provide proof that Bush’s pre-emptive invasion of Iraq is not imperialistic.
Why do you hate America so much?
March 18th, 2007 at 8:13 pmTracey
Are you serious? Why do you neo-cons hate America so much?
They think that to win a war in Iraq, which is really to solve debunked US and UN resolutions, that we must shred our constitution and take away our liberties thereby turning us into a facist state so we can defeat the Iraqi people who are, by Exleys post, better off now than under Saddam and that because the Iraqis are better off now we must not redeploy our troops (Standing down as they stand up -GWB another euphemism for redeployment) but send in more troops
The logic of Tracy, who is in direct oppostion to Exleys logic and Jakes logick, is mind boggling.
Tracy feel free to join Jake and Exley in the cat litter box match.
I’m gonna go take a nap while you try to bury your scat.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:15 pm#277
“And just what are we ATTEMPTING to do in Iraq, pray tell, besides hijack their oil reserves.”
Trying to get that part of the world to change politically.
Please provide some proof that we are trying to hijack the Iraqi oil reserves? Where is all of reaping of the oil rewards that you claim were are attempting obtain?
March 18th, 2007 at 8:15 pmBecause we won’t let our soldiers goosestep?
Comment by The Artist Formerly Known as WORFEUS
Because we dare to speak truth to the lies told by the neo-con fascists like Tracey, Exley, and Jake.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:15 pm#283
Are you defending Stonehinge’s link he/she posted?
March 18th, 2007 at 8:18 pmPlease provide some proof that we are trying to hijack the Iraqi oil reserves? Where is all of reaping of the oil rewards that you claim were are attempting obtain?
Oh Tracey, now you’re just being dumb.
Go away Tracey if you are really as ignorant as you seem.
And why do you hate America so much?
March 18th, 2007 at 8:18 pmTracey
March 18th, 2007 at 8:19 pmPlease provide some proof that we are NOT trying to hijack the Iraqi oil reserves?
Tracy feel free to join Jake and Exley in the cat litter box match.
I’m gonna go take a nap while you try to bury your scat.
Comment by Zep Tepi
*snort*
I hope it’s a big box.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:19 pmExplain and provide proof that the U.S. intends to make Iraq part of the empire of the U.S. -Tracey
Permanent bases.
Please provide some proof that we are trying to hijack the Iraqi oil reserves? Where is all of reaping of the oil rewards that you claim were are attempting obtain? -Tracey
They are swimming in oil, of course this war is about oil. Iraqi oil will pay for this war -Wolfowitz
March 18th, 2007 at 8:21 pm#291
I sure hope not an Rumsfield was wrong for even speaking to him.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:21 pm#292
Again what ever the hell you name is, why don’t you GROW a pair and quit editing you profanity laden posts?
March 18th, 2007 at 8:22 pmTracey
Provide proof that Bush is NOT imperialistic by invading Iraq illegally
Provide proof that the Bush/Cheney are NOT trying to control Iraq oil reserves.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:23 pmTracey
PROVIDE PROOF DAMMIT. YOU DEMAND PROOF
March 18th, 2007 at 8:25 pmPROVIDE PROOF TRACEY THAT BUSH ISN’T AN IMPERIALIST CRIMINAL FOR INVADING IRAQ ILLEGALLY
PROVIDE PROOF THAT WHAT BUSH HAS DONE IN IRAQ IS NOT A WAR CRIME
PROVIDE PROOF
March 18th, 2007 at 8:27 pm#304 Tracy “Speaking to him.?????” A handshake is used to CLOSE A DEAL. My point is that we had no problem dealing with the “Butcher of Baghdad” when he was usefull to us and our business interests.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:28 pm#294
That doesn’t even to begin to answer the question intelligently. Try again consider we are trying to put a country back together plundered by a dictator for 30 years.
“Doubtful – moron.”
You can’t even respond to ANY post without shit comming out of you mouth, so don’t.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:29 pmWhy is anyone discussing what Perle and Delay says. Their prediction have proved that they are lunatics. Perhaps Tim will start asking the mentally feeble at his local state mental ward, what should be our best military strategy.
Tim Russert’s Heehaw Show.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:29 pmMeet the Press has now gone really low. Russert now has ex House Rep who is indicted next he’ll have convicted Libby, Abramoff, Duke and Ney on the show. Yes Abramoff, Duke and Ney can get work release and Libby can do the show before he goes to jail. You would think NBC could find so none criminals to be on his show. I guess not. It was nice to see Tim endorse Tom DeLays book. Tim and the so called smart guest forgot to tell the viewers that Judge Gonzales dismissed a DUI charge against George W. Bush while he was Govenor of Texas. Yes Gonzales saved Bush’s career as Bush had told voters he stopped drinking long ago. Bush was so gratefull he gave Al the job as Attorney General. What a gift for that dismissal. I always wondered why Gonzales who is as dumb as a door knob was made Bush’s choice for the Supreme Court and Attorney General now I know why. None in the media will print the truth but the facts are in public records in Texas for all to see. Bush will have to turn is back on his friend Al as he did Jack, Duke and Libby. Yes Bush is a friend only when he needs you then as the true drunk/druggie he is says ” your fired but they made me do it.”
March 18th, 2007 at 8:31 pmExley sez:
A link would have been easier and quicker for you to provide, and yet you went out of your way to avoid providing it.
Similarily, when dixie blood challenged you for a link, it would have been far easier and more effective for your argument to provide it. Yet, again, inexplicably, you failed to deliver.
As I’ve said numerous times now, it’s a time-honored troll tactic. You aren’t fooling anyone.
Hey…another lie. Is anyone honestly surprised?
Point me to the post where I ‘decided to cease’ calling you on your bullshit troll tactics, or admit your lie.
As I explained to you in my earlier post (see how easy making a link is, BTW?), my intention was only to call you on your attempts at derailing the argument. You have enough people addressing your argument itself.
Projection.
Again, your dance card is full, Petunia. I’m just a chaperone at this particular soirée.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:34 pmTracy, nobody is going to call BS because it’s not BS.
Isn’t it sad that you didn’t have a chance to attend university for free? Isn’t it sad that you have to cough-up megabucks to splint a broken bone or pull a rotten tooth? Isn’t it sad that all these Fudge Pachyderms are still walking around like Congress is their own private sex club?
Who knew that the Iraqis had it so good?
March 18th, 2007 at 8:34 pm#296
“…that we must shred our constitution and take away our liberties”
Please explain what constitutional rights of your have been taken away and how your liberties have been diminished.
“The logic of Tracy, who is in direct oppostion to Exleys logic and Jakes logick, is mind boggling.”
I am not in agreement of Exley when he says we need to redeploy. I don’t think Iraq is near stable enough to stand up to those like Iran who would almost certainly make Iraq into another Lebanon, i.e. a puppet state from which to train terrorist groups like Hezbollah.
“I’m gonna go take a nap while you try to bury your scat.”
No you need to take a very long nap and rejoin the debate when you figure out what is going on.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:36 pm#308
You leveled the accusation.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:37 pm#309
“My point is that we had no problem dealing with the “Butcher of Baghdad†when he was usefull to us and our business interests.”
And my point is that I totally agree that it was wrong!
March 18th, 2007 at 8:39 pmProvide Proof Tracey you coward. You lie and you have no defence. Coward liar neo-con fascist hater-of-America. Get lost.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:41 pmMaybe because the German Army was in North Africa? And we could secure the eastern Mediterranean? Are you on a Fox scholarship at your local community college?
March 18th, 2007 at 8:41 pmThat doesn’t even to begin to answer the question intelligently. Try again consider we are trying to put a country back together plundered by a dictator for 30 years.
Comment by Spacey — March 18, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
You’re kidding right Major Tom?
You understand that on March 18th, 2003, Baghdad was a normal city, with busses, trains, resturaunts, traffic jams, pedestrians, apartments, night clubs, movie theatres, and kids playing in the streets right?
Well, to be fair, the kids are still playing in the streets. It just now they’re playing with the body parts of their neighbors kids.
:|
What’r you from Pluto or something?
March 18th, 2007 at 8:42 pm#300
Please be half way intelligent and provide some proof of what you claim.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:42 pmTracey
March 18th, 2007 at 8:42 pmYou are a coward hiding behind rationales about war strategies. Damn you masters of war. Damn you. Damn you to hell
Exley, nobody is going to discuss that asinine poll. You’ll need to do much better than that. So just run along now until you find something better.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:42 pm#301
Again you leveled the BS accusation first.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:43 pmTracey
Provide proof of your own assertions.
Coward.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:44 pmProvide proof Tracey
March 18th, 2007 at 8:45 pmTracey, provide proof of your stupid assertions
March 18th, 2007 at 8:45 pmTracey
March 18th, 2007 at 8:45 pmBack up your neo-con drivel with proof.
Tracey
March 18th, 2007 at 8:46 pmSupport your lies.
#303
“Permanent bases”
We have permanent bases in South Korea and Germany and have for decades now. Go back to sleep.
“They are swimming in oil, of course this war is about oil. Iraqi oil will pay for this war -Wolfowitz”
Some REAL proof.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:46 pmTracey
Provide REAL proof of what you say.
You can’t, you have none.
You’re a lying sob just like your paymasters.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:47 pm“I don’t think Iraq is near stable enough to stand up to those like Iran who would almost certainly make Iraq into another Lebanon, i.e. a puppet state from which to train terrorist groups like Hezbollah.” — Tracy
Iraq was standing up to Iran just fine until we destroyed it. Now, I’m afraid the US has no choice but to negotiate with Iran. The dam is broken……get used it. It’s not like you weren’t warned.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:47 pm#314
“Tracy, nobody is going to call BS because it’s not BS.”
They are either all wimps here or they believe what is most definately BS.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:48 pmTracey hates America and lies about it pretending pretending like a thief in the night
March 18th, 2007 at 8:48 pmSome REAL proof.
Comment by Tracy — March 18, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
Lemme put it this way slappy.
If you think the Iraq war was NOT about oil, then you might want to take a look at this peice of land I’ve got down south.
It has great,…. er.. potential.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:48 pm#318
You leveled the accusation. If you knew how debates work you would provide some proof.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:49 pmYou’re buddy Jake passed on it but I sounds like its perfect for you.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:49 pmTracey
March 18th, 2007 at 8:50 pmyou are the wimp. Lying sack of sh’t hater of America, killer of our soldiers, as if you held the gun in your own hand every time you and your commander in thief send another child to fight your filthy war.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/concentration.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&hl=en 911
Mysteries
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L68t_xGEAzE&mode=related&search= Kay Griggs –
March 18th, 2007 at 8:51 pmPart 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_X2JIoa1RM&mode=related&search= Kay Griggs –
Part 2
> http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm
Tracey
March 18th, 2007 at 8:52 pmLevel this!
#313, TPM,
“Similarily, when dixie blood challenged you for a link, it would have been far easier and more effective for your argument to provide it. Yet, again, inexplicably, you failed to deliver.”
What are you talking about? Please look at my response to DixieBlood at posting# 205 again. I did indeed post the link.
I accept your apology, TPM.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:54 pmTracy sez:
Just curious, Tracy…are any of those embassies visible from space?
March 18th, 2007 at 8:54 pm#320
“You understand that on March 18th, 2003, Baghdad was a normal city, with busses, trains, resturaunts, traffic jams, pedestrians, apartments, night clubs, movie theatres, and kids playing in the streets right?”
And in the middle of the night political opponents, those who tried to speak out against Saddam were disposed of by the Saddam’s henchmen. It was a facade in which no one was allowed to question that condition OUTSIDE of Baghdad which were BTW in horrible condition prior to the invasion.
BTW you are not artist…well maybe of fantasy.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:58 pm#322
LOL! That’s about all you are worth now.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:59 pmF’ck off Tracey. You America hater.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:00 pm#335
“If you think the Iraq war was NOT about oil…”
Either you are actually a new poster here or you haven’t read many of my post from even one year ago, because I have always agreed that this war in Iraq was about oil, BUT it wasn’t the MAIN reason.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:01 pmAnd in the middle of the night political opponents, those who tried to speak out against Saddam were disposed of by the Saddam’s henchmen. It was a facade in which no one was allowed to question that condition OUTSIDE of Baghdad which were BTW in horrible condition prior to the invasion.
Provide some proof Tracey of what you say
March 18th, 2007 at 9:02 pm#338
LOL!
March 18th, 2007 at 9:02 pmEither you are actually a new poster here or you haven’t read many of my post from even one year ago, because I have always agreed that this war in Iraq was about oil, BUT it wasn’t the MAIN reason.
Provide some proof of your statements Tracy
March 18th, 2007 at 9:02 pmExley sez:
While my assertion that you failed to post the link twice was indeed erroneous, it only underscores my original point. You could have just as easily posted that link originally, and saved everyone a lot of trouble. The fact that you deliberately did not provide it originally speaks volumes about your true motives.
Still waiting for your apology, Exley…but I won’t hold my breath.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:03 pmTracey
March 18th, 2007 at 9:05 pmProvide proof of any of the bs you’ve said.
Tracey, the problem here is that your grasp of reality is so tenuous, there is no way you could successfully debate on this forum. You will need at least six months deprogramming just to understand the rules. Given that, don’t expect anyone to show pity or sing tender love songs when you bust a kneecap.
However, if you truly want to play, go here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
and get busy.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:06 pmWhile my assertion that you failed to post the link twice was indeed erroneous
You are forgiven, TPM.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:06 pmAnd in the middle of the night political opponents, those who tried to speak out against Saddam were disposed of by the Saddam’s henchmen. It was a facade in which no one was allowed to question that condition OUTSIDE of Baghdad which were BTW in horrible condition prior to the invasion.
Comment by Spacey — March 18, 2007 @ 8:58 pm
Lol. Yea genuis. Then where’d all these homes and mosques and shopping centers we’re blowing the shit out of come from?
Life may have not been what you’re accustomed to, but it was a life they were willing to live with.
Life under OUR rule, they are apparently not willing to live with.
Thats why they’re shooting at us genius.
:|
It truly boggles the mind.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:06 pm#345
LOL! I am now 1 inch away from you little face.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:06 pmAnd in the middle of the night political opponents, those who tried to speak out against Saddam were disposed of by the Saddam’s henchmen. It was a facade in which no one was allowed to question that condition OUTSIDE of Baghdad which were BTW in horrible condition prior to the invasion.
BTW you are not artist…well maybe of fantasy.
Comment by Tracy — March 18, 2007 @ 8:58 pm
Yet it was George Bush, who in the campaign of 2000 said that it was not the job of America to be the policemen of the world, listing as one of his ever changing 10 reasons for invading Iraq was to rescue the Iraqi people from that bad guy Saddam Hussein.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:08 pmCome on Tracy
March 18th, 2007 at 9:08 pmProvide some proof of any of the crapola you post.
BTW you are not artist…well maybe of fantasy.
Comment by Lazy — March 18, 2007 @ 8:58 pm
I’m sorry, was that an insult or were you making a career observation?
March 18th, 2007 at 9:08 pmCome on Tracy
Put up or shut up. Put up some proof or shut the f’k up.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:09 pmWhat ‘cha got Tracy?
Nothing. Nada. You are the missing link!
March 18th, 2007 at 9:11 pmExley sez:
As are you, Exley. I know you can’t help yourself.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:12 pmHey Tracy,
Why hasn’t Fox “News” printed all those “good news” stories coming out of Iraq? One of the soldiers involved in bringing Baby Noor over to the U.S. for a life changing operation once told us via CNN that there are “thousands” of good news stories like Baby Noor’s in Iraq. So why hasn’t Fox “News,” the mouthpiece of this administration, reported on them? Any idea?
I’ve asked the Bush a*s kissers who post here the same thing, and they can’t seem to come up with any answers.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:12 pm…why is tracy arguing with numbers ?…
so strange…
March 18th, 2007 at 9:17 pmFolks, in case you haven’t figured it out yet, Tracy is not to be considered a credible source for debate. I once asked him about Bush’s statement of wanting bin Laden “dead or alive” and then his subsequent “I don’t really care where he is” and “I don’t think about him much,” to which Tracy replied, “And you took him literally?”
March 18th, 2007 at 9:18 pmFolks, in case you haven’t figured it out yet, Tracy is not to be considered a credible source for debate.
Comment by WC — March 18, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
Maybe not, but he sure is a credible source for amusement.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:24 pmWow, WC…Tracy must have a specially reinforced skull to safely contain all that cognitive dissonance. ^_^
March 18th, 2007 at 9:25 pmDebating the neocon trolls in here is like debating a North Korean.
They don’t hear what you say, because all the thinkings already been done for them.
They’re just good little subjects to the crown.
They’re the last of the hold outs.
The VolkSturm.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:26 pmFolks, in case you haven’t figured it out yet. Tracy is not to be considered a credible source for debate
Duh, ya think?
March 18th, 2007 at 9:27 pm#342
I don’t think so but we aren’t trying to rebuild Germany anymore. I think you need to take a nap also.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:28 pmNow that you have admitted you were wrong, TPM, and apologized(which I appreciate), do you care to comment on the content of article?
March 18th, 2007 at 9:28 pmwhy is tracy arguing with numbers ?…
Why does Tracy hate America?
March 18th, 2007 at 9:28 pmThe neocon trolls are good little Germans.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:29 pmI don’t think so but we aren’t trying to rebuild Germany anymore
So that’s why you Tracy hates America
March 18th, 2007 at 9:31 pmI don’t think so but we aren’t trying to rebuild Germany anymore
Tracy is angry at America because we are no longer rebuilding Der Fuehrer land.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:34 pmwhy is tracy arguing with numbers ?…
Why does Tracy hate America?
Comment by ChildrenofLir — March 18, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
imagine if it were roman numerals ! …
March 18th, 2007 at 9:35 pmSo you are equating what we are attempting to do in Iraq with the USSR’s attempt to make Afghanistan a part of their empire? I am sure the troops would love to hear that from you considering it’s total BS and the fact that you have zero proof to back it up.
Comment by Tracy
The reasons for going to war has been shown to be a big lie. The yellow cake documents were forgeries.. the aluminum tubes were not for nukes, the intelligence was being fixed around the case for war, PNAC …etc etc..
The U.S. troops wont be the first to be used as “cannon fodder”. It has happened many times in the past through out human history. That is why the founding fathers of America warned against having a standing army… it would be used for reasons that have NOTHING to do with self defense.
So yes… we attacked unprovoked and then we build huge bases with no intention of leaving for decades just like a colonial power.. just like our history shows we have done in the past and just like what the USSR was doing.
Iraq belongs to the Iraqis… if we have our military there and they didnt attack us then we are acting just like the USSR.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:36 pmEnough
http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/2007/03/18/stop-the-coup-at-doj/
March 18th, 2007 at 9:38 pmWORFEUS, do be careful with that NK uppercut. There is so much disinformation there, you might want to take another look.
Here is an amazing article that opened my eyes a while back:
Understanding North Korea
March 18th, 2007 at 9:40 pmYou know, the more I think about it, I think I was wrong originally. Those Libs make good sense. I stand corrected.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:41 pmI am sure the troops would love to hear that from you
Comment by Spacey Tracy
You know I’ve had about enough of this hurting the troops crap.
The troops don’t have anything to do with whether or not we’re in Iraq. Its not their decision, They go where they’re told and do what they’re told.
ALL the troops can do, is hope that the people in charge don’t misuse their power. All they can do is hope when the people in charge use the sacred power of the command of the military (and it is a sacred power), that those people have wisdom, judgement and temperance in deciding when to use that mighty army.
So when people like you vote to elect people like Bush, the troops ARE hurt, as they are sent off to be dismembered and die in a foriegn land for greed, avarice and corruption.
You are hurting the troops lamebrain.
YOU.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:48 pmYou definately come from outer space Tracy.
In fact, I think you’re from Uranus.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:50 pmComment by ChildrenofLir — March 18, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
Of course, I injected a smidgen of sarcasm…
March 18th, 2007 at 9:50 pmJack Moss, re Stop the Coup at DOJ:
Would you truly have us believe that Alberto VO5’s trouble is due to residual Clenis?
March 18th, 2007 at 9:55 pmto which Tracy replied, “And you took him literally?â€
Comment by WC — March 18, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
He tried to weasel his way out of a losing argument with me. When I told him the dictionary definition of synonym is that two words need to be interchangeable, his reply was “Whatever you say, Gregor”.
The goal posts never stop moving with Tracy.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:59 pmJake is a fake and he has about as muc h understanding of the middle east as that crook Delay. Richard Perle has been so wrong about Iraq it is surprising anyone would let him on their program to talk about that war. Of course Perle was a salesman for invading Iraq and was aided and abetted by the news media. The American people see through these jackasses.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:03 pm#356
He shouldn’t have said that in 2000.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:08 pm#358
A career observation….you are a good artist of fantasy.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:09 pm#364
“I once asked him about Bush’s statement of wanting bin Laden “dead or alive†and then his subsequent “I don’t really care where he is†and “I don’t think about him much,†to which Tracy replied, “And you took him literally?”
You were one those apparently who took what he said literally. Of course he cares about where bin Laden is. Don’t be obtuse.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:12 pmSad to say – as I am a friend of Jewish people both in general and in particular – but AIPAC has become a very toxic force to common-sense American diplomacy. Hawkish Jews would do well to consider what a sh#tstorm of anti-Semitism they will unleash should AIPAC continue to “successfully” influence American foreign policy as they have in the Iraq war. Don’t bother with pulling out the anti-semitism card on me – the majority of American Jews agree with me.
Perle is toxic. Why so-called American Conservatives do the bidding of these people is beyond me. But the proof is in the pudding. The neo-con/Bush policies have immeasurably weakened the US. They do serve the nominal goals of hawkish Israelis.
It’s time to bring the “dual loyalties” argument back out of the closet. On its merits I would not apply it to anyone I’ve ever met. But on the results it’s gotten, it’s insane not to apply it to folks such as Perle.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:13 pmHey, Tracy, if he cares about where bin Laden is, why hasn’t he done anything about it? Why has he dismantled the CIA unit responsible for finding bin Laden? Why haven’t we put diplomatic, military, and direct pressure on Pakistan, where bin Laden has been for years now?
I don’t give a slingshot’s turd what Bush said about bin Laden. I care very, very much about why he has done everything possible not to catch him (leaving aside the obvious argument that it was a good thing for a Bush re-election). But that’s just because I’m a patriotic American. I don’t know what your excuse is.
Obtuse? You are beyond 180. Isn’t there a bridge lacking you underneath it?
March 18th, 2007 at 10:18 pmOf course he cares about where bin Laden is.
Comment by Spacey — March 18, 2007 @ 10:12 pm
Yea?
So where the f$##$K is he then?
March 18th, 2007 at 10:22 pmHuh tough guy?
Where the hell is Bin Laden? What prison do you guys have him in?
WELL?????
March 18th, 2007 at 10:23 pmYou were one those apparently who took what he said literally.
Comment by Tracy — March 18, 2007 @ 10:12 pm
This is the “bestest” excuse for Bush (mis)administration:
Reporter: “Sir, Mr. President, could you explain to us why WMD have not been found in Iraq?”
Pres Bush (bewildered): “What do you mean?”
Reporter: “Well, sir, after all the times you talked about Hussein’s WMD, and his ties to AlQaeda…”
Pres Bush (as he shakes his head in disbelief): “Oh, you mean those WMD!? You didn’t take what I said literally did you?”
Of course he cares about where bin Laden is. Don’t be obtuse.
Then he would have just said so. Don’t be obtuse.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:28 pm#376
“The reasons for going to war has been shown to be a big lie.”
Provide proof that the intelligence was a lie.
“…the aluminum tubes were not for nukes, the intelligence was being fixed around the case for war, PNAC …etc etc.”…
BLAH….BLAH…BLAH.
“So yes… we attacked unprovoked and then we build huge bases with no intention of leaving for decades just like a colonial power”
We aren’t staying there to rule the country.
“…just like our history shows we have done in the past and just like what the USSR was doing.”
In what other country were we doing what the USSR was attempting to do with Afghanistan? Again you trying to compare what the U.S. is trying to do in Iraq to what the Soviets attempted to do in Afghanistan is pathetic.
“That is why the founding fathers of America warned against having a standing army… it would be used for reasons that have NOTHING to do with self defense.”
Well the founding father didn’t know everything and they were absolutely wrong on that point.
“Iraq belongs to the Iraqis… if we have our military there and they didnt attack us then we are acting just like the USSR.”
You haven’t provided any proof that the U.S. is trying to take Iraq away from the Iraqis. Please do.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:29 pmBy the way -welcome back, Worfeus ;-)
March 18th, 2007 at 10:30 pmHowdee Gregor
You haven’t provided any proof that the U.S. is trying to take Iraq away from the Iraqis. Please do.
Comment by Gracie — March 18, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
Proof….? Hmmm…..
Well, how about we start with the half a million troops, tanks and helicopters we have over there…..
:|
It boggles the mind.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:36 pm#354
“Then where’d all these homes and mosques and shopping centers we’re blowing the shit out of come from?”
Well you very weel might be part of the terrorists operation inside Iraq that are destroying those structures on a daily basis. Damn one does lurk here.
“Life may have not been what you’re accustomed to, but it was a life they were willing to live with.”
Good excuse for doing nothing.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:42 pmYou were one those apparently who took what he said literally. Of course he cares about where bin Laden is. Don’t be obtuse.
Comment by Tracy — March 18, 2007 @ 10:12 pm
Then why did the a*shole say it? If I am not to believe him when he says he doesn’t care where bin Laden is and doesn’t think much about him, when the hell am I supposed to take him seriously?
Give me some type of reference which I can use to determine whether his words are based in reality or fantasy.
Using your logic:
Bush says he doesn’t care about bin Laden, yet I am supposed to think just the opposite.
Then I guess when Bush says he doesn’t plan on invading Iran, I’m supposed to expect it.
Bush says he wants to wean the U.S. off foreign oil in 10 years, but administration spokesmen say he wasn’t being literal. Who am I supposed to believe, and why?
Seems to me that a person who says one thing but means another can’t be trusted.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:48 pmGood excuse for doing nothing.
Comment by Loser — March 18, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
Well, considering we have butchered somewhere near half a millon Iraqis, and considering there ins’t a family in Iraq who hasn’t lost someone they know to our bombs and bullets, or from the civil war we unleashed, and considering we blew the landscape, buildings and infrastructure back to the stone age, doing “nothing” makes more sense then the clusterf$$k you and your keystone cops created.
So yea. From now on, when you guys get an idea to do something, do nothing instead.
Lets give that a try for a while.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:51 pm#380
Considering the MAJORITY of the troops believe in why we are in Iraq I am saying and will continue to say that people like you are the ones undermining them, so get use to taking the “crap”.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:53 pmIn fact, sit tight.
We’re gonna help you with that doing nothing thing.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:53 pmHe shouldn’t have said that in 2000.
Comment by Tracy — March 18, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
Maybe he shouldn’t have. But he’d say anything to get elected. Like, oh, “I’ll restore honor and dignity to the White House.”
Yet he did say it. He knew then the history of Saddam and his treatment of Iraqis. He knew what a bad man Saddam was. So in 2000 Saddam was off-limits, but after 9/11, all of a sudden he becomes oh-so-interested in the human rights aspect of Iraq. BS.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:56 pm#384
“WHen I told him the dictionary definition of synonym is that two words need to be interchangeable, his reply was “Whatever you say, Gregorâ€.”
I wasn’t talking synonyms…YOU were.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:57 pmob·tuse (Åb-tÅÅs’, -tyÅÅs’, É™b-) Pronunciation Key
adj. ob·tus·er, ob·tus·est
Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity
—Synonyms 1. unfeeling, tactless, insensitive; blind, imperceptive, unobservant; gauche, boorish; slow, dim.
Hmmm…a perfect description of George W. Bush. Thanks, Tracy!
March 18th, 2007 at 11:01 pmGeorge Bushlet, a chickenshit of the first water, already cut and ran when he held elections which could have no other possible outcomes but a.) handing over Iraq to some bunch of theocrats, or b.) utter chaos.
America has carried out two effective occupations, those of Japan and of Germany (plus the rather mixed success in occupying Dixie). In Japan and Germany the agenda was clear: put countries which were developing as conservative liberal-democracies, before they succumbed to the cheap easy temptation of fascism, back on path.
General MacArthur in Japan and Paul Nitze in Germany, with the strong backing of Dean Acheson in Washington and George Kennan operating out of Moscow, spent a hard six and seven years doing this — and they succeeded. Germany and Japan became strong liberal democracies, in both cases with a usually conservative bent.
In the Iraqi case exactly the same thing was called for. Iraq was well along on the path of Arab renewal — “Ba’ath” for the illiterate out there — and the difficulties of the process led the country astray.
The duty of America after the military conquest, however mendacious its initiation, was clear: carry through the process, without the fascist overtones that had crept into Saddam Hussein’s administration.
George Bush and his bunch of clowns were not up to it.
Their send-out-for-pizza bunch of suddenly delivered satraps in Iraq didn’t even speak the language.
Consider a contrast: when Macarthur’s occupiers arrived at Atsugi Air Force Base in 1945 they had people out of the Michigan Army Language School who were both eager and competent to push forward the long overdue reform of Japanese orthography and the nationwide integration of the various Japanese proto-languages. “Tokyo-ben,” today’s national language of Japan, is a creation of a competent occupation.
When George Bush called elections which could only be won by one sect or another, he was simply giving up. His simple statement at that time was “I have no clue what I am doing. We’re just shooting off guns because that’s what ignorant little kids do.”
That is when America cut and ran.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:02 pm#391
“Hey, Tracy, if he cares about where bin Laden is, why hasn’t he done anything about it? ”
What else would you like him to do to attempt to catch him?
“Why has he dismantled the CIA unit responsible for finding bin Laden?”
How do you know another unit wasn’t created in it’s place and is hunting right now? If there is it’s something you don’t need to know about and should demand to know. That’s of course if you don’t mind compromising field agents.
“Why haven’t we put diplomatic, military, and direct pressure on Pakistan, where bin Laden has been for years now?”
You know where he is? Please talk to the CIA and let them know. BTW we are LUCKY we are getting the cooperation from Pakistan that we are. There is only so much Musharraf is willing and able to do with a government that is on al Qaeda’s take anyway.
“I care very, very much about why he has done everything possible not to catch him”
Again what would you like him to do?
March 18th, 2007 at 11:05 pmProvide proof that the intelligence was a lie.
Where are the WMD’s? Certainly not under a table that Bush looked under in a tasteless joke. Or were we not to take his joke literally?
The “intelligence” flies directly in the face of what Colin Powell and Condi Rice told us months before 9/11, when they said that Iraq was contained, they were not a threat to their neighbors nor to the U.S., the sanctions were working, and Iraq did not have the capacity to restart any WMD programs, including producing nuclear weapons. Powell even said the sanctions had been reworked to make sure they remained effective.
Yet mere hours passed after the 9/11 attack before Bush, Cheney, and Rummy were looking for a reason to attack Iraq, according to Richard Clark and Paul O’Neill.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:06 pmAgain what would you like him to do?
Comment by Loser — March 18, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
How about his F#@$#$KING JOB pinhead?
March 18th, 2007 at 11:13 pm#399
“Then why did the a*shole say it?”
Damn I can’t believe I am going to have to explain this. When I heard him say this I could easily detect the sarcasm in his voice. He was getting tired of reporters asking the same damn question over and over after he repeated said previously for months that we are tracking and hunting him. The terrorist watch TV and I think it was aimed at them in order to not give them the satisfaction of thinking that the U.S. was having trouble finding bin Laden, possibly in order to get them to take their guard down and think that the U.S. was “laying off”. It called tatics…even in the war of words.
“Give me some type of reference which I can use to determine whether his words are based in reality or fantasy.”
If you don’t “get it” in the context it was used in the bin Laden case, too bad I can’t help.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:13 pmListen to how a loser reacts. Bin Laden attacked us on 911. Bush stood on the dead bodies of the victims and said “the people who knocked these towers down will hear from us all soon”.
Now, 6 years later, when asked where the guy is who knocked those towers down, and this loser says “What would you like him to do?
Just like a repug.
They talk a good game, but don’ t have the ability to get the job done.
:|
I hear its that way in bed for them too.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:17 pm#399
“….considering we blew the landscape, buildings and infrastructure back to the stone age”
Again, OUTSIDE Baghdad, i.e. where Saddam resided, it was in the “stone age”. You have this dilusion that Iraq was a prosperous thriving country prior to the 2003 invasion.
“So yea. From now on, when you guys get an idea to do something, do nothing instead.
Lets give that a try for a while.”
And let Saddam’s sons rule for another 30 years. Wasn’t going to happen.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:18 pmSo tell us, Tracy, in which of these statements was Bush not being literal? (These are all taken from TP’s archives, by the way):
1. At a press conference today, President Bush said, “We’re not leaving [Iraq] so long as I’m the president. That would be a huge mistake.â€
2. President Bush said in an interview on Thursday that he would withdraw American forces from Iraq if the new government that is elected on Sunday asked him to do so, but that he expected Iraq’s first democratically elected leaders would want the troops to remain as helpers, not as occupiers.
3. Bush: “Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done.”
And here’s a bonus. How about this one? Literal? Not literal? Why or why not?
On June 28, 2005 — just 18 months ago — Bush said that sending more troops to Iraq would “undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead†and “suggest that we intend to stay forever.â€
March 18th, 2007 at 11:22 pmIf you don’t “get it†in the context it was used in the bin Laden case, too bad I can’t help.
Comment by Tracy
So you crawled inside his skull and know for a fact that’s why he said what he did? I would like to see you prove any of what you think because you can’t, its your opinion. There is nothing to ‘get’.
Also is that why he also called the constitution a piece of GD paper?
You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.”—Interview with CBS News, Washington D.C., Sept. 6, 2006
March 18th, 2007 at 11:23 pm#393
“Pres Bush (as he shakes his head in disbelief): “Oh, you mean those WMD!? You didn’t take what I said literally did you?†”
Did he have a smile on his face? Sounds like to me that he was mocking the reporter, considering the idiot asked the same question that dozens of other reporters asked in the past. He said previously multiple times that they U.S. military was looking for them.
“Then he would have just said so. Don’t be obtuse.”
If he doesn’t care about where bin Laden is then why are we still conducting operations there with thousands of U.S. troops and CIA officers…right now? I think you are beyond obtuse.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:26 pmAnd let Saddam’s sons rule for another 30 years. Wasn’t going to happen.
Comment by Wimpy — March 18, 2007 @ 11:18 pm
So you’re saying you’re a total wimp?
You”re afraid of a tiny little country in the middle east, with no Navy, no long range Air Force, no nuclear weapons, and a dismanteled Army that was contained “in a box”, and could not leave their own borders, under the watch of the UN and the US, you were afraid of them?
A tiny nation with nothing but old 1950’s NATO tanks and small arms from the Viet Nam war? No computer tracking systems, no communications infrastructure, no submarines or battleships, no smart bombs or bullet proof vests?
You’re afraid of THAT?
:o
Wow.
Your family must be very proud.
Tell you what Patton.
Why don’t you buy one of those steel panic rooms, you know, like they sell on TV? Buy one of those and plant it in the ground, then you and your fowl family can crawl inside and pull the door shut behind you.
We’ll call you when its safe to come out.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:26 pm#396
We had more troops in Germany well AFTER WW2 ended! LOL!
March 18th, 2007 at 11:28 pmIf he doesn’t care about where bin Laden is then why are we still conducting operations there with thousands of U.S. troops and CIA officers…right now? I think you are beyond obtuse.
Comment by Tracy
Osama wasn’t in Iraq and he sent thousands of troops there. How obtuse can you be?
March 18th, 2007 at 11:30 pm#404
But a better one of D student Kerry!
March 18th, 2007 at 11:30 pm#407
“Where are the WMD’s?”
Again provide proof that Bush lied.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:34 pm#408
You make it sound like you or anyone you know could have done a better job….maybe that loser BJ Clinton or his so-called wife maybe?
March 18th, 2007 at 11:35 pmRegarding the debate on MTP, I think the only appropriate response to anything Perle and Delay have to say is, “Tim, why don’t you bring on someone who has actually gotten something right in the last ten years, and, while you’re at it, let’s make the panel felon-free.”
I’m sick of seeing democrats show respect to dispicable people.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:36 pmTracy you would believe anything dear leader said no matter how asinine it was and your trying to prove, thru unprovable means is truly bizarre.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:36 pm#410
“They talk a good game, but don’ t have the ability to get the job done.”
You just described Clinton thru out the 1990s, but he didn’t even have the willingness.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:37 pm“Where are the WMD’s?â€
Again provide proof that Bush lied.
Comment by Tracy
Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn’t. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.
Bush’s statements, in chronological order, were:
“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”
United Nations address, September 12, 2002
“Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.”
“We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.”
Radio address, October 5, 2002
“The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”
“We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.”
“We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States.”
“The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his “nuclear mujahideen” — his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.”
Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002
“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”
State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
Address to the nation, March 17, 2003
Now prove otherwise Tracy.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:41 pm#412
1. Untill the Iraqis are able to handle the security, economic, and political situation independently.
2. “President Bush said in an interview on Thursday that he would withdraw American forces from Iraq if the new government that is elected on Sunday asked him to do so…”
Did they ask American forces to leave?
3. What didn’t you understand about that one?
“On June 28, 2005 — just 18 months ago — Bush said that sending more troops to Iraq would “undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead†and “suggest that we intend to stay forever.—
Well they didn’t “take the lead” unfortunately back in 2005. Now we have to try something different. You know things change on a constant basis overthere…don’t you?
March 18th, 2007 at 11:43 pmNow prove to us where the WMD are Tracy.
I have looked back thru your posts and you have not provided a single link to anything. You have made many guesses and opinions as to why George should not be taken literally, but not once have you proved anything.
You remind me of Michael the King of the question mark.
You just described Clinton thru out the 1990s, but he didn’t even have the willingness. Comment by Tracy
Actually he caught more terrorists than Bush. Now prove he didn’t.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:46 pmThe terrorist watch TV and I think it was aimed at them in order to not give them the satisfaction of thinking that the U.S. was having trouble finding bin Laden, possibly in order to get them to take their guard down and think that the U.S. was “laying offâ€.
Heh. It’s comical the lengths some people will go to defend this failure of an administration.
OK. So first you tell me that Bush wasn’t being literal when he said he didn’t care where bin Laden was. Which means he really DOES care where bin Laden is and is actively hunting him. Yet Bush was being sarcastic (ahhh…sarcasm…the latest military tactic of the new century) in order to make bin Laden and his followers think we were laying off in the hopes they’d make a misstep which would give us an opportunity to catch them.
Yeah…those poor, dumb, ignorant terrorists. CNN posts a story on their Web site about a PC World article talking about the Patriot Act, and in the article there are details about our efforts at tracking their cell phones, Internet, and e-mail activity, and Bush brags to the public on numerous occasions how we track terrorists, yet the administration gets all bitchy when the press reveals the warrantless wiretapping program. On several occasions I’ve suggested to you trolls that you contact your local FBI field office and report CNN and the article’s author (Frank Thorsburg, I think his name is) for aiding the terrorists, yet no one has taken up that task.
I’m through with you.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:47 pm#413
“There is nothing to ‘get’.”
I got it…you didn’t.
“Also is that why he also called the constitution a piece of GD paper?”
Please cite your source for that one. FULL context would be nice.
“You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.â€â€”Interview with CBS News, Washington D.C., Sept. 6, 2006″
Damn he wasn’t referring to Iraq being an active partner with al Qaeda. Iraq is part of the political change necessary to happen in the Middle East in order to combat the spread of Islamic fundmentalism which terrorism spawns from.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:48 pmhttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com/CaughtonFilm.html
Here Tracy, take a gander.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:49 pmmwah.
Again provide proof that Bush lied.
Comment by Tracy — March 18, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
Answer the question. Where are the WMDs?
March 18th, 2007 at 11:50 pmDid they ask American forces to leave?
Why yes…yes they did. From TP’s archives:
Leaders of Iraq’s sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis called Monday for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in the country and said Iraq’s opposition had a “legitimate right†of resistance.
And this, from Paul Bremer:
… “If the provisional government asks us to leave, we will leave,†Bremer said, referring to an Iraqi administration due to take power June 30. “I don’t think that will happen, but obviously we don’t stay in countries where we’re not welcome.â€
March 18th, 2007 at 11:53 pmWell they didn’t “take the lead†unfortunately back in 2005. Now we have to try something different. You know things change on a constant basis overthere…don’t you?
Comment by Tracy
Much like that goal post on wheels you move all around while never providing proof. I have in this short span provided more proof than you have in a year of trolling. If you want to be an effective troll your gonna have to provide something.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:54 pmAgain provide proof that Bush lied.
Comment by Tracy
You didn’t see his lips move?
Mwahahahaha
March 18th, 2007 at 11:55 pm“Iraq belongs to the Iraqis… if we have our military there and they didnt attack us then we are acting just like the USSR.â€
You haven’t provided any proof that the U.S. is trying to take Iraq away from the Iraqis. Please do.
Comment by Tracy
Lets say a stranger moves into your house and he has guns… he occasionaly shots one of your family members dead. He wont leave. Years go by… he is still there killing people. He tells you how to run your house. He builds onto the house and declares it off limits to you…
WTF would you call it? A visitor that only stays 10 years? 20 years? What if that was happening in Oklahoma?
March 18th, 2007 at 11:57 pmWell they didn’t “take the lead†unfortunately back in 2005. Now we have to try something different. You know things change on a constant basis overthere…don’t you?
Comment by Tracy — March 18, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
And Bush said that the surge will work and that the Iraqis had to stand up and take responsibility for their security because he told the Iraqis it had to. Oh yeah, they are shakin’ in their boots over that.
Other than Bush’s strong words, what makes you think that the Iraqis will take the lead now? You are the obtuse one if you think that telling them that they have to reach certain goals and benchmarks yet there will be no punishment or repurcussions if they don’t will make a hell of a difference over there.
March 18th, 2007 at 11:59 pm#415
“So you’re saying you’re a total wimp?”
We were getting tired of dicking around with him. He was like a roach that wouldn’t go away.
“that was contained “in a boxâ€, and could not leave their own borders, under the watch of the UN and the US, you were afraid of them?”
Saddam was paying suicide bombers famlies in the West Bank, he was scamming the UN for years, he attempted to have Bush Sr. assinated…no I am was not afraid of the Iraqi military, but it’s amazing how easy it is to move money and con entire international organizations like the UN. Saddam being weak as he was provided an opportunity to change the political situation in the Middle East.
“We’ll call you when its safe to come out.”
If you think leaving Saddam in place was a “safe” move it’s no wonder Gore and then Kerry lost. You must also think Iran is getting picked on.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:04 amUntill the Iraqis are able to handle the security, economic, and political situation independently.
How do you get to this point?
Did they ask American forces to leave?
They don’t have to ask us leave; we should not be occupying their country.
Well they didn’t “take the lead†unfortunately back in 2005. Now we have to try something different. You know things change on a constant basis overthere…don’t you?
Comment by Tracy — March 18, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
The something different is leaving their country and have them sort things out themselves.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:05 amTracy…another clip on an Iraqi request for us to leave (the date on this was June 16, 2006):
March 19th, 2007 at 12:05 am
If you think leaving Saddam in place was a “safe†move it’s no wonder Gore and then Kerry lost. You must also think Iran is getting picked on.
Comment by Tracy
Actually thats untrue, if you have followed the news you would know about those that were found guilty of tampering with the votes, which BTW was enough to alter the outcome.
As usual you provide nothing and now have to move tha goal post once again. What Gore has to with Iran only your spastic mind would know or try to tie together.
Really, stick with today.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:09 amThere are ways to implant yourself (the US), in other countries to exert a certain amount of influence on that country, or in the region. It may not exactly be imperialism, but it has some of the characteristics. Or it is exactly imperialism…
March 19th, 2007 at 12:15 am#433
“WTF would you call it? A visitor that only stays 10 years? 20 years?”
We are STILL in Germany with HUGE bases. Do the Germans think that we are trying to take their country away from them?
March 19th, 2007 at 12:19 amf you think leaving Saddam in place was a “safe†move
It was a dumb move to attack Iraq while looking for Osama in Afghanistan. It would have been far better to keep control of Iraqi airspace while fighting a war on terror. As Scowcroft stated this undermines the war on terror. Saddam was going nowhere fast and did not have the weapons that were claimed.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:20 amDo the Germans think that we are trying to take their country away from them?
Comment by Daisy — March 19, 2007 @ 12:19 am
Thats because we’re not driving around kicking in their doors, mowing down their fences with tanks and shooting them.
:|
March 19th, 2007 at 12:24 amJake the Troll claims to be “happily married” for 53 years.
Yeah? How happy is your wife?
You spend countless hours on the computer trolling web blogs of the intellectual left and drop right-wing turd -oops- talking points of a repetitive nature.
If your wife is happy about this situation it must only be because you are fingering the keyboard and not her.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:26 amI hold those that carry out and plan the operations higher on the threat meter than those who are the “face†of the movement. In fact bin Laden and/or Zawahiri being taken out would only makethem a martyrs.
No I don’t think so. Bush and Neocons have the military do their dirty work; Hitler had the SS do his dirty work; and Zawahiri and Bin Laden have what they call the Mujahideen do their dirty work.
You are right, but think of the moderate Muslims going ballistic if we put one foot in Mecca. This has to be done incrementally and on the periphery.
What difference does it make? They’re going ballistic because we put our foot in Iraq.
This guy was engaged in planning and carrying out terrorist attacks before bin Laden was even known as a international terrorist.
Comment by Tracy — March 18, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
Zawahiri and Bin laden put out a call to all like-minded individuals to attack America. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed came to them with his plan. Zawahiri and Bin Laden recruited the people to help Mohammed carry out his mission, provided the training to these people and provided financial support.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:27 amWe are STILL in Germany with HUGE bases. Do the Germans think that we are trying to take their country away from them?
Comment by Tracy — March 19, 2007 @ 12:19 am
-Germany can govern their own country. Germany can protect their own country. We can leave at anytime.
-And stop trying to compare the Iraq fiasco to WW2.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:32 amIf you think leaving Saddam in place was a “safe†move it’s no wonder Gore and then Kerry lost. You must also think Iran is getting picked on.
Comment by Tracy
This comment makes no sense.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:35 am#438
“Actually thats untrue, if you have followed the news you would know about those that were found guilty of tampering with the votes, which BTW was enough to alter the outcome.”
That’s pure speculation that it would have made a difference. BTW if all the military votes were allowed in the Florida the outcome wouldn’t have even been in question in 2000.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:35 amIraq is part of the political change necessary to happen in the Middle East in order to combat the spread of Islamic fundmentalism which terrorism spawns from.
Comment by Tracy — March 18, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
Invading Iraq was one dumbest moves made by president in recent memory. More Muslims are actually embracing Bin Laden’s way of thinking.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:41 am-And stop trying to compare the Iraq fiasco to WW2.
Comment by Nat — March 19, 2007 @ 12:32 am
Well, there are some similarities. For example, like WW2, the invading and occupying, aggressor nation was under the thumb of a tyrannical executive who used a terrorist act to launch an all out bloody campaign of occupation and plunder.
In fact, you could say Iraq is our Poland.
Anbar Province can be our Warsaw Ghetto.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:41 am#426
“Actually he caught more terrorists than Bush.”
Please provide a list of those he did catch.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:43 amThat’s pure speculation that it would have made a difference. BTW if all the military votes were allowed in the Florida the outcome wouldn’t have even been in question in 2000.
Comment by Tracy — March 19, 2007 @ 12:35 am
All the military votes were counted.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:44 amlol redstate.
That’s pure speculation that it would have made a difference -Tracy
Prove it.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:45 am#429
I don’t know, however, even the UN reports don’t account for all of Saddam’s destruction of his stock piles. Now provide proof that Bush lied.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:45 amPlease provide a list of those he did catch.
Comment by Tracy
Not until you provide proof of anything you have said here.
Prove he didn’t.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:46 amNow provide proof that Bush lied.
Comment by Tracy — March 19, 2007 @ 12:45 am
Sure. You want to start with putting Colin Powell in front of the country to present intelligence that the CIA told Bush was false?
:|
Lets start with that one.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:48 amIn fact, he had him sell it to the world, LIVE, on international television.
CIA told him not to use the Niger meeting. It had already been discredited.
So what did Bush do?
Tried to smear the name of the man they sent down there to learn what went on, outing a covert CIA agent in the process, then put Colin Powell in front of the entire world live on camera to sell the world on the idea we had to invade Iraq, using the intelligence the they had already been told was false.
Lets deal with that lie first.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:52 amI don’t know, however, even the UN reports don’t account for all of Saddam’s destruction of his stock piles. Now provide proof that Bush lied.
Comment by Tracy
I posted them above. Now provide proof he didn’t.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:53 amI don’t know
Comment by Tracy — March 19, 2007 @ 12:45 am
Now thats the first thing you’ve said tonight that makes sense.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:57 amI don’t know, however, even the UN reports don’t account for all of Saddam’s destruction of his stock piles. Now provide proof that Bush lied.
Comment by Tracy — March 19, 2007 @ 12:45 am
Bush and Neocons lied to invade another country. The UN could not account for about five percent of chemical and biological weapons Saddam purportedly had but that did not mean he had the weapons. Bush took it upon himself to say that Saddam had the weapons. And all the stuff about a nuclear weapons’ program came solely from the Bush administration.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:57 amWhy in the hell did MTP have Delay (an indicted and FORMER House Majority Leader) and Perle (one of the architects of the Iraqi disaster)? Was all of Washington sunning in Belize? Tim Russert needs to learn to steer and control the amount of talking time each guests get and not allow them to interrupt each other like CNN and Fox. Take a few pointers from PBS and NPR. And god damn, stopping asking “in hindsight” questions that are worthless and illogical. Russert needs to confront the talking points and the logic and premises of the arguments presented and stop focusing on some fucking Wayback Machine!
March 19th, 2007 at 1:00 amHammer time!
In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:02 amI don’t think Iraq is near stable enough to stand up to those like Iran who would almost certainly make Iraq into another Lebanon, i.e. a puppet state from which to train terrorist groups like Hezbollah.
What? Lebanon is a puppet state for Iran? That’s a new one. Is that why the United States is desperately trying to prop up the Lebanese government?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:03 amHammer time!
In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:04 amJust because he’s (Sestak) retired military doen’t mean he isn’t a twit.
……..maybe that loser BJ Clinton.
Comments by Tracy
Do you ever use even neutral words about people with whom you disagree, Tracy?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:06 amStill, can’t get over Clinton’s BJ, can you? So why aren’t you bothered at all by the overnights gay hooker Jeff Gannon/James Guckert had at the WH? Is it because Gannon advertises being an “on-the-top guy” and perhaps provides differfent services?
Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al-Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement
Tracy? Tracy? Where are you?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:07 am#437
It’s all politics because not even 10 months earlier…
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-09/14/content_3487591.htm
“We will set no timetable for withdrawal. A timetable will help the terrorists, will encourage them that they could defeat a superpower of the world and Iraqi people,”
March 19th, 2007 at 1:08 am#405 Good post, but perhaps over the heads of the trolls.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:09 amAnd if you are the David Lloyd-Jones I used to know in Tokyo, “hisashiburi.” If you respond, please do not use my family name and other information that could be used to identify me.
#424
Where is your proof the Bush LIED?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:12 amI caught Tom “The Hammer” De Lay and Richard Perle’s indefensible defense of the Iraq War this morning on Tim Russert’s Meet the Press. These morons truly believe that what’s happening in Iraq is a war between those who would embrace democratic principles (there was an election in Iraq, remember?), and those spoil sports who like it the way it was: men rule, women vote the way we tell them, each Muslim’s version of Mohammedism must be protected at all costs, and it is righteous to behead all infidels, Christians (”crusaders,”), Jews, and non-Shia or non-Sunni, depending who the unlucky one is caught.
Not exactly western-style democracy, as I understand it. What were you morons thinking? Hello, testing, 1,2 3 … Richard Perle, any neoconservative who isn’t in hiding …?
Unfortunately, the remaining Iraqi Muslims are largely fundamentalist blue collar working class, as the educated, secular professionals — the doctors, lawyers, professors, etc. — have all largely fled, as the intelligent and professional Jews in Nazi Germany did in the 30’s. What we have now is a fierce civil war between Shia and Sunni. So forget transplanting democracy in Iraq, Tom the Hammer and Richard. It ain’t gonna happen. And I lay the death of 100,000 innocent Iraqis and 3,500 of our troops at your feet, you pompous, ignorant pricks.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:12 amWhere is your proof the Bush LIED?
Comment by Tracy
Where is your proof he didn’t?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:13 amDid he have a smile on his face?
Comment by Tracy — March 18, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
Er, Tracy, that was a little scenario *I* made up (completely, mind you) to show you how ridiculous your “did you take that literally?” excuse would sound if Pres Bush ever used it.
That you took it seriously shows you have a grave, serious issue: Not only did you think it was factual, you looked for excuses for that absolutely outlandish response.
You need professional help.
I think you are beyond obtuse.
As I said above, that you thought my little 100% fictitious story was real shows it is you who are beyond obtuse, Tracy.
And if Pres Bush cared, he would simply have said so -it is not as if he minds repeating a message to “catapult the propaganda”.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:15 am#422
Please provide some evidence in a poll or something that states that the Iraqi think we are trying to take over their country. Yes they want us out, I don’t blame them but I haven’t heard of any story where is says that the Iraqis think that the U.S. is trying to take over their country.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:15 am“We will set no timetable for withdrawal. A timetable will help the terrorists, will encourage them that they could defeat a superpower of the world and Iraqi people,â€
Comment by Tracy — March 19, 2007 @ 1:08 am
It looks like the Iraqi president doesn’t know the nature of the insurgency.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:16 amI just gave you one nimord.
Deal with that Bush lie, then you can ask about more Bush lies.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:20 amPlease provide some evidence in a poll or something that states that the Iraqi think we are trying to take over their country. Yes they want us out,
Comment by Cagney and Lacey — March 19, 2007 @ 1:15 am
Gee ya THINK?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:22 amWhat was it that tipped you off first that they wanted us out Colombo?
Was it the IED’s they are blowing us up with?
Or was it all the shootin at us and stuff….?
:|
What tipped you off there first there Sherlock?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:24 amLOL!
Tracy thought my fictitious story was real, looked for ways to excuse Pres Bush’s outlandish reaction that I made up, and still has the nerve to call me “beyond obtuse”.
If you want to know obtuse look in the mirror, Tracy
But, hey, thanks for the laugh.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:25 am#444
“No I don’t think so. Bush and Neocons have the military do their dirty work”
Well it doesn’t suprise me that you think hunting for bin Laden and other terrorists is “dirty work” on the same level as the SS. Not to mention that it also sounds like you are trying to make bin Laden and al Qaeda as righteous freedom fighters and are just continuing on with what they did against the Soviets.
“They’re going ballistic because we put our foot in Iraq.”
I don’t see the mainstream “Muslim world” going ballistic because we are in Iraq. Where is the massive demonstrations against the U.S. in countries like Egypt, Jordan, Syria, or Iran for that matter? Of course the radical Muslims are going ballistic.
“Zawahiri and Bin laden put out a call to all like-minded individuals to attack America….”
Again, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was already engaged in “jihad” before he approached bin Laden.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:27 am‘It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy (WMDs) prior to the conflict.’ If that was true then Saddam had fulfilled the criteria of UN resolution 1441 and there was absolutely no legal right for the US and UK to go to war. -Don Rumsfeld
As I said before, UN resolutions, not terrorism. No WMD has been found to this day.
Please provide some evidence in a poll or something that states that the Iraqi think we are trying to take over their country. -Tracy
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm
Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as “liberators” or “occupiers,” 71% of all respondents say “occupiers.”
Occupier
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/occupier
To seize possession of and maintain control over by or as if by conquest.
Now when are you going to post any proof Tracy?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:28 amBut a better one of((SIC–I think you mean “than” here) D student Kerry!
Comment by Tracy
It is very unlikely that someone could graduate from an Ivy League university with a D average. That’s, in fact, the reason why Cheney was asked to leave Yale–twice. As for Kerry’s actual grade average, it was a C like Bush’s.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:28 amFrom the Associated Press
“Kerry had a cumulative average of 76 and got four Ds his freshman year — in geology, two history courses and political science, The Boston Globe reported Tuesday.
His grades improved with time, and he averaged an 81 his senior year and earned an 89 — his highest grade — in political science as a senior.
He said he has previously acknowledged focusing more on learning to fly than studying.
Under Yale’s grading system in effect at the time, grades between 90 and 100 equaled an A, 80-89 a B, 70-79 a C, 60 to 69 a D, and anything below that was a failing grade.
In 1999, The New Yorker magazine published a transcript showing Bush had a cumulative grade average of 77 his first three years at Yale, and a similar average under a non-numerical rating system his senior year.
Bush’s highest grade at Yale was an 88 in anthropology, history and philosophy.”
I don’t blame them but I haven’t heard of any story where is says that the Iraqis think that the U.S. is trying to take over their country.
Comment by Tracy — March 19, 2007 @ 1:15 am
The motive for this war was oil and it looks like the new Iraqi oil law that Bush pushing will take significant revenue from the Iraqi people.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:29 am#445
The point is that the Germans, even with our HUGE presence, don’t think we are trying to take over their country.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:29 am#446
Sorry.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:30 am#448
“More Muslims are actually embracing Bin Laden’s way of thinking.”
Provide a link that proves this nonsense.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:30 amThe point is that the Germans, even with our HUGE presence, don’t think we are trying to take over their country.
Comment by Tracy — March 19, 2007 @ 1:29 am
Thats because we’re not blowing sh$%t up.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:32 amBut, hey, thanks for the laugh.
Comment by Gregor Samsa
LMAO Gregor
March 19th, 2007 at 1:33 amBTW, I think it’s funny yet pathetic that Tom DeLay, Republican House Majority leader until less than a year ago, would go on a TV talk show to discuss the Middle East without even knowing the US has bases in Bahrain and Qatar. But then, facts usually mean nothing to neo-CONs.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:36 amThe point is that the Germans, even with our HUGE presence, don’t think we are trying to take over their country.
Comment by Tracy
You know the Republican party at this point doesn’t even want you around and I don’t blame them.
Excuse me while, laughingly, I go get another drink.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:42 amWell it doesn’t suprise me that you think hunting for bin Laden and other terrorists is “dirty work†on the same level as the SS.
I wish Bush was doing this but he chose instead to go on this Iraqi adventure.
Not to mention that it also sounds like you are trying to make bin Laden and al Qaeda as righteous freedom fighters and are just continuing on with what they did against the Soviets.
They’re not freedom fighters but that’s how they characterize themselves. Anyway I think both Bush and Bin Laden are terrorists.
I don’t see the mainstream “Muslim world†going ballistic because we are in Iraq. Where is the massive demonstrations against the U.S. in countries like Egypt, Jordan, Syria, or Iran for that matter? Of course the radical Muslims are going ballistic.
We don’t see them supporting us either. No one’s happy that we’re in the Muslim World. Check the polls.
Again, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was already engaged in “jihad†before he approached bin Laden.
Comment by Tracy — March 19, 2007 @ 1:27 am
Most of the jihadists were trying to overthrow the corrupt regimes in the Middle East. Bin Laden gave them a new target, recruited the fighters, provided the training and financial support.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:42 amSo, Tracy -
What does it feel to know you were looking for ways to rationalize a preposterous reaction by Pres Bush during an interview that never happened because I made it up?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:45 amComment by Spacy Tracey — March 19, 2007 @ 1:33 am
Tracy can be such a hoot sometimes, can’t he?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:46 amThe point is that the Germans, even with our HUGE presence, don’t think we are trying to take over their country.
Comment by Tracy — March 19, 2007 @ 1:29 am
Why would they think we were doing that? Anyway in Iraq, Bush and the Neocons don’t want the country, they just want control of the oil.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:48 amTracy can be such a hoot sometimes, can’t he?
Comment by Gregor Samsa
I do believe you ‘proved’ it! =)
March 19th, 2007 at 1:49 amHe’s more fun than a barrell full of republicans
March 19th, 2007 at 1:49 amWhy would they think we were doing that? Anyway in Iraq, Bush and the Neocons don’t want the country, they just want control of the oil.
Comment by Nat — March 19, 2007 @ 1:48 am
And like I said Nat, we’re not blowing the crap out of Berlin like we are Baghdad.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:51 amIraq is part of the political change necessary to happen in the Middle East in order to combat the spread of Islamic fundmentalism which terrorism spawns from. -Tracy
Not is wasn’t. It was about, as I posted, UN resolutions as Rumsfeld said, above. This war in Iraq undermines the battle of terrorism which was spawned by Saudi fundamentalist extremists and that has been largely financed, since 1938, by the sale of oil. Our addiction to oil, ironically, helps to spawn terrorism.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:55 amComment by The Artist Formerly Known as WORFEUS — March 19, 2007 @ 1:51 am
And during WWII, the Axis powers were the aggressors -not the victims. Germans understood that all too well. They were a defeated nation after a fight they started.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:58 am#455
Don’t the Brits still to this day stand behind the claim?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:58 amAnd during WWII, the Axis powers were the aggressors -not the victims.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — March 19, 2007 @ 1:58 am
Well, we’re kind of the Axis this time around.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:01 am“More Muslims are actually embracing Bin Laden’s way of thinking.â€
Provide a link that proves this nonsense.
Comment by Tracy — March 19, 2007 @ 1:30 am
March 19th, 2007 at 2:02 am
#461
You aren’t aware of Iran’s influence in Lebanon? Unbelievable.
http://austincentrist.blogspot.com/2006/12/lebanon-overview.html
March 19th, 2007 at 2:03 amWorfeus,
That is exactly the reason why all comparisons between the occupation of Iraq and WWII are fundamentally flawed.
The only reason Bush cultists are trying so hard to perpetuate that notion is to prop up their Dear (mis)Leader’s image as a great “war time president”. What a joke.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:05 am#463
What are you suggesting about Bush? He’s gay?
March 19th, 2007 at 2:06 amI tried to place a link @ #499 and it didn’t work. I’ll try again here.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:08 am#469
You leveled the accusation. It’s up to you to provide the proof.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:13 am#470
I didn’t expect you to lie and make something up. My bad. I will take your little charades from now on as total BS.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:21 am#476
I am happy you are happy with your fictional stories. It suits you well.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:23 amI didn’t expect you to lie and make something up.
Comment by Tracy — March 19, 2007 @ 2:21 am
You really are quite obtuse.
I didn’t lie, you twit. It was meant as a joke to show how ridiculous your “did you take that literally?” BS excuse actually is.
Bush’s reaction was so outlandish, I thought it was obviously a made-up scenario.
But… sorry I hurt your feelings…. aawww….
March 19th, 2007 at 2:25 am#476
Well I suggest you look here then for more obtuse statement on your part….
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/11/kondracke-stalinists/#comment-2189756
March 19th, 2007 at 2:27 amOh, and Tracy,
I am not “happy” with my made-up stories.
I am rather amused by your reaction to them.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:27 am#478
Where in your USATODAY post does it say anything about the Iraqis thinking that the U.S. wants to take over their country?
“Now when are you going to post any proof Tracy?”
What proof are you asking for?
March 19th, 2007 at 2:32 am#463
What are you suggesting about Bush? He’s gay?
Comment by Tracy
I am, first and foremost, asking you why you are still so hung up about a consensual BJ Clinton had about 10 years ago but seemingly unconcerned by a gay hooker’s overnights at the WH in more recent years, eg. in this century.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:32 amI couldn’t care less whether Bush or Rove or whoever is gay. However, considering the “family values” advocated by this administration, I do find the repeated visits to the WH by a gay hooker hypocritcal and fishy. And BTW, every time I notice you bringing up Clinton’s BJ again from here on, I will probably be reminding you of Gannon/Guckert the gay whore’s overnights at the WH.
#479
“It is very unlikely that someone could graduate from an Ivy League university with a D average.”
Did I say he graduated with a “D average”?
March 19th, 2007 at 2:34 am#484
I think they are well aware that the terroists are the one responsible for intentionally killing their women and childern.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:38 amPerle’s the LIAR
March 19th, 2007 at 2:38 amDeLay’s the THIEF
AND CHIMPya’s the CREEP who BUYS the BULLSHIT BEEF!!!!!
#488
“We don’t see them supporting us either. No one’s happy that we’re in the Muslim World.”
That isn’t the same as “going ballistic”.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:40 am#489
Make me think you are a good liar.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:41 amWell I suggest you look here then for more obtuse statement on your part….
Comment by Tracy — March 19, 2007 @ 2:27 am
Thanks for putting your own lunacy on display.
That is the thread where you insisted Microsoft and General Electric have a left-wing “agenda”, and that they started MSNBC because leftist views have such a vast market in the US.
You also replied to my point that GE and MS got into the broadcast business because of “their self-serving corporate interests” with a complete non sequitur about me “not understanding anything about business”.
By all means, Tracy, do dig out some more examples about me being “obtuse”. You do amuse me.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:42 am#495
“Not is wasn’t.”
You are entitled to you OPINION.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:43 am#512 Did I say he graduated with a “D average�
Comment by Tracy
Then what on Earth did you mean by calling Kerry a D student? Bush also had a D at Yale. One usually doesn’t refer to a person as a “D student” unless that is/was her/his grade average.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:43 am#503
I thought you said “most” Muslims. It’s getting late.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:45 am#507
No, you lied.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:47 am#509
“I am not “happy†with my made-up stories.”
Sure sounds like it.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:48 ambut I haven’t heard of any story where is says that the Iraqis think that the U.S. is trying to take over their country.
Comment by Tracy
Well, when you have a foreign army in your country for 4 years you would probably suspect they are not springbreakers.
This thread is so sad that it is even laughable. Poor Tracy, the things she had to say to defend the side that has been wrong all the time, about everything, everywhere.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:48 am#503
I thought you said “most†Muslims. It’s getting late.
Comment by Tracy — March 19, 2007 @ 2:45 am
I said:
You said:
March 19th, 2007 at 2:50 am
No, you lied.
Comment by Tracy — March 19, 2007 @ 2:47 am
No, I didn’t. I was telling an obviously fictional story.
It never even crossed my mind to end my post with a sarcasm mark, because the whole thing was so outlandish I never thought anyone would take it seriously.
Interesting you should blame me for your own shortcomings.
Sure sounds like it.
Comment by Tracy — March 19, 2007 @ 2:48 am
Well, you are wrong again (what a surprise).
March 19th, 2007 at 2:57 amWhat are you suggesting about Bush? He’s gay?
Comment by Tracy
Oh, no. He just likes to have sex with men.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:58 am#511
You think that Bush knew and he didn’t do anything about it? Why are you trying to compare what a WH press reporter’s activities to Clinton cheating on his wife, then lying on television to the American people about it, then attempting to apologize, then lying to grand jury about it? You do realize he was impeached….don’t you?
March 19th, 2007 at 2:59 amJuan C,
Tracy is a he. Or at least has insisted he is.
Nat,
Reading comprehension is not Tracy’s forte.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:01 amYou do realize he was impeached….don’t you?
Comment by Tracy
So what does Bush deserve after this?
Im thinking about a rope.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:04 amComment by Juan C — March 19, 2007 @ 2:58 am
Careful, Juan. Tracy will fail to understand the sarcasm, will ask you to source your claim, and when you try to explain to him you were just joking he will call you a liar.
Yes, I do have psychic powers ;-)
(the smiley face means I was just kidding, Tracy)
March 19th, 2007 at 3:06 amThanks, Gregor.
In case, Tracy doesnt click on the link, this is an excerpt:
On 11 September 2001, six hours after the attacks, I heard that Donald Rumsfeld said that it might be an opportunity to ‘hit’ Iraq. I heard that he said: ‘Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.’
I heard that Condoleezza Rice asked: ‘How do you capitalise on these opportunities?’
I heard that on 17 September the president signed a document marked top secret that directed the Pentagon to begin planning for the invasion and that, some months later, he secretly and illegally diverted $700 million approved by Congress for operations in Afghanistan into preparing for the new battle front.
In February 2002, I heard that an unnamed ‘senior military commander’ said: ‘We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq.’
I heard the president say that Iraq is ‘a threat of unique urgency’, and that there is ‘no doubt the Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised’.
I heard the vice president say: ‘Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.’
I heard the president tell Congress: ‘The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.’
March 19th, 2007 at 3:08 am#517
“That is the thread where you insisted Microsoft and General Electric have a left-wing “agendaâ€, and that they started MSNBC because leftist views have such a vast market in the US. ”
I insisted they know that there is a market for leftwing views and that YOU are the one who insinuated that they have a left wing agenda. You did this by not realizing, even now, that businesses are engaged in the media market place to make money.
“By all means, Tracy, do dig out some more examples about me being “obtuseâ€. You do amuse me.”
No problem. You don’t think Matthews or Olberman have left wing views. At least you never rebuked my factual comment about Matthews and Olberman having left leaning views. Have you watched Olberman? If you think he isn’t liberal then God help you.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:08 am#519
It was a symbolic joke pointing to the fact that Kerry always seems to portray himself a some kind of “intellectual”…which he isn’t…not even close.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:11 am528
March 19th, 2007 at 3:15 amSecret Service records show that Gannon/Guckert was at the WH many times when there were no press conferences. Moreover, his so-called press credentials were so flimsy that he was rejected for a pass for the Congressional press corps at a time when the Repubs controlled both houses. Yes, I am saying Bush knew something and did nothing about it. Gannon/Guckert quit only after bloggers, suspicious of his incredibly softball questions at press conferences, looked him up on the Internet and found the gay escort ads he was still posting while attending WH press conferences.
I brought this up and will bring it up again every time you harp on Clinton’s BJ, because this issue has been obfuscated amid all the other scandals coming out of this administration and because Rep. Louise Slaughter’s and John Conyers’ requests to the WH for more information about Gannon/Guckert were denied. I suppose it is too much for your rigid neo-CON mind to accept that there’s something fishy about a gay hooker (and tax evader in Delaware) using a pseudonym, frequently visiting the WH both as a reporter for a website not even recognized as a proper media outlet and on nights when there were no press conferences whatsoever. Bush hasn’t even explained or apologized.
Finally, I won’t even bother replying to your last silly and condescending question.
Yes, I do have psychic powers ;-)
Comment by Gregor Samsa
No, Gregor. Why would you joke about ESP abilities? Thats not very honest of you. BTW, I still think Bush is the greatest president.
How was that impression of Tracy?
March 19th, 2007 at 3:18 amYou did this by not realizing, even now, that businesses are engaged in the media market place to make money.
Comment by Tracy — March 19, 2007 @ 3:08 am
Wow. You got it all backwards. I was being sarcastic. I even started my post with “I see, in your opinion General Electric is a left-leaning conglomerate. So is Microsoft.”
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised it went over your head.
Have you watched Olberman?
No. Even if he had “left-leaning” views, fact remains that the editorial board at MSNBC makes the decisions of what hits the airwaves, and what doesn’t. Accusing MSNBC of being “lefty” (as you did) implies its parent companies have ok’d that leaning and are sympathetic.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:21 amIf you think he isn’t liberal then God help you.
Comment by Tracy
Im afraid to ask (we kind of heard it all from you) but you really know the difference between liberal and left, right?
March 19th, 2007 at 3:21 amIt was a symbolic joke pointing to the fact that Kerry always seems to portray himself a some kind of “intellectualâ€â€¦
Comment by Tracy
I doubt you meant it as a joke; you were probably hoping to get away with some neo-CON spin–lies.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:22 am#525
“No, I didn’t. I was telling an obviously fictional story.”
OK, I will take your word for it; however, considering some of the rounds of BS questions that reporters have asked Bush over the years your made up round didn’t really sound that outlandish.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:22 am#534
“Yes, I am saying Bush knew something and did nothing about it.”
He knew what?
March 19th, 2007 at 3:26 amTracy, more lies for you:
I heard the president, in the State of the Union address, say that Iraq was hiding materials sufficient to produce 25,000 litres of anthrax, 38,000 litres of botulinum toxin, and 500 tons of sarin, mustard and nerve gas.
I heard the president say that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium – later specified as ‘yellowcake’ uranium oxide from Niger – and thousands of aluminium tubes ‘suitable for nuclear weapons production’.
I heard the vice president say: ‘We know that he’s been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.’
I heard the president say: ‘Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.’ (Uhhh, Im trembling, Im an idiot)
I heard Donald Rumsfeld say: ‘Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent. I would not be so certain.’
One of my personal favorites:
I heard the president say: ‘You can’t distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam.’
March 19th, 2007 at 3:28 amComment by Juan C — March 19, 2007 @ 3:18 am
You had me fooled for a split second ;-)
March 19th, 2007 at 3:28 am#536
“I was being sarcastic.”
Oh, so now your claiming sarcasm. You are the one who is denying the fact that MSNBC is left leaning in their reporting evidenced by your own admission that you haven’t watched Olberman. I suggest you do before you try and defend the indefensible.
“Accusing MSNBC of being “lefty†(as you did) implies its parent companies have ok’d that leaning and are sympathetic.”
No, again you have zero business sense. Those owning companies like GE are looking only at dollar signs.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:35 am#431He knew what?
Comment by Tracy
Your original question in #428 was “You think that Bush knew and he didn’t do anything about it.” I already answered it, even if it’s too much for you to fathom.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:37 amBTW, you were once concerned about me “staying up all night” by posting past 3 am EST, though I actually live far from the East Coast. Since you claim to be in CST, isn’t this getting a bit past your bedtime? In any case, I will signing off soon.
#537
I am afraid to ask if you think Olberman is liberal, period.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:37 am#538
Well, I really don’t care what you think.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:37 am#544
Thanks for your concern. I am off work tomorrow. It’s OK.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:40 amOh, so now your claiming sarcasm.
Comment by Tracy — March 19, 2007 @ 3:35 am
Good Jeebus, Tracy! In that post I even accused Jack Welch (THE jack Welch) of being part of a vast left-wing conspiracy. Get a clue already.
No, again you have zero business sense. Those owning companies like GE are looking only at dollar signs.
Comment by Tracy — March 19, 2007 @ 3:35 am
You make no sense whatsoever.
So MSNBC is a “left-wing mouthpiece” (as you called it), and somehow acts independently from GE and Microsoft -who only see dollar signs?
Why wouldn’t MSNBC see only dollar signs, as its parent companies do? (same parent companies that happen to have a say on how MSNBC conducts business) And I am the one with no business sense? Sshheeessshh…
March 19th, 2007 at 3:45 amI heard Condoleezza Rice continue to insist: ‘It’s not as if anybody believes that Saddam Hussein was without weapons of mass destruction.’
I heard that the Niger ‘yellowcake’ uranium was a hoax legitimised by British intelligence, that the aluminium tubes could not be used for nuclear weapons, that the mobile biological laboratories produced hydrogen for weather balloons, that the fleet of unmanned aerial drones was a single broken-down oversized model airplane, that Saddam had no elaborate underground bunkers, that Colin Powell’s primary source, his ‘solid information’ for the evidence he presented at the United Nations, was a paper written ten years before by a graduate student. I heard that, of the 400,000 bodies buried in mass graves, only 5000 had been found.
I heard Lieutenant-General James Conway say: ‘It was a surprise to me then, and it remains a surprise to me now, that we have not uncovered weapons. It’s not from lack of trying.’
I heard a reporter ask Donald Rumsfeld: ‘If they did not have WMDs, why did they pose an immediate threat to this country?’ I heard Rumsfeld answer: ‘You and a few other critics are the only people I’ve heard use the phrase “immediate threatâ€. It’s become a kind of folklore that that’s what happened. If you have any citations, I’d like to see them.’ And I heard the reporter read: ‘No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people.’ Rumsfeld replied: ‘It – my view of – of the situation was that he – he had – we – we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that – that we believed and we still do not know – we will know.’
March 19th, 2007 at 3:52 amI look like rachel hijacking the thread.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:56 amTracy,
One more thing: I wouldn’t trust you to tell us -when it comes to Bush, or anyone else for that matter- what to take literally and what not.
You obviously have a problem understanding sarcasm, and identifying clearly fictional stories. You have taken all these posts literally, putting a big dent in your smug “did you take him literally?” attitude, and highlighting you are the least indicated person to help us elucidate when Pres Bush is to be taken literally.
I would mention irony but you would try to debate the meaning of the word, and deny it is relevant in this context.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:24 amNOTE TO WORLD: CUT and RUN is the MORAL THING TO DO SINCE THE ENTIRE WAR AND INVASION ARE CORRUPT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. The idea that we need to “redeploy” which seems to be the favored position now on Think Progress and all the other so-called progressive left sources is that we need to fight the war smarter to win without unecessary violence or harm to our troops! THAT IS CRAP! The troops need to be removed from a war crime in progress NOW!
March 19th, 2007 at 8:15 amSAUDI ARABIANS ATTACKED NEW YORK CITY ON 9-11. Last fall, the Bush Administration rewarded Saudi Arabia with 15,000 new student visas for their royal brats to come study here in America.
And Iraq got blamed for which no Iraqi was involved.
[...] ThinkProgress: At one point, DeLay claimed that places like Bahrain and Qatar wouldn’t accept U.S. troops [...]
March 19th, 2007 at 8:52 amLet’s face it: We, the people, were lied to and misinformed about this war from the outset; our military has been duped by the duds in Washington; The people willl no longer tolerate any stalling tactics by this Congress vis-a-vis cutting the funds to bring this war to a screeching halt.
With each passing day, the national debt increases; with each passing day, more of our troops and innocent Iraqis are caught in the crossfire of a civil war; with each passing day, we lose more respect for the officials in public office; with each passing day, we hear the final sighs of this “dying democracy”.
We now KNOW what needs to be done – but do we have that infamous “resolve” to do it? Certainly, it won’t be easy because the morass of corruption is ever so deep and complicated at this point; however, if, in fact, we intend to maintain any semblance of a democracy, it is our constitutional DUTY to do the work necessary to save this democracy.
March 19th, 2007 at 9:20 am#553 – “We, the people, were lied to and misinformed about this war from the outset;…”
Apparently, Bill and Hillary Clinton “LIED”, along with Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, Madeline Albright and Al Gore……Thank you for representing the appeasement crowd so efficiently.
March 19th, 2007 at 10:03 am#554 – Don’t forget Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, Arlen Spector, George Allan, and the rest of the Republicans in the Majority at the time that “LIED” as well!
In fact, as the majority party, their lies are even more egregious!
March 19th, 2007 at 11:38 am[...] his debate skills are weak and he’s no match for retired Navy Admiral Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), Think Progress has the video. It was almost painful to watch Tom DeLay’s use weak, well worn, 5 year-old GOP [...]
March 19th, 2007 at 12:07 pm#548
What are you determined to equate what GE and MicroSoft see as their agenda on having to have an influence on what and/or MSNBC reports the news? Olberman and Matthews are biased liberals and since you don’t watch either you really can’t speak intelligently about it. Why does the subsidiary have to fall in line with the political leanings of the parent company? BTW what is the political affiliation of GE and Microsoft? I don’t think GE or Microsoft are looking or caring too much about how and what MSNBC reports. Again they are looking at the profitablity of MSNBC and that their bias has a place in the MSM market.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:18 pm#551
“One more thing: I wouldn’t trust you to tell us -when it comes to Bush, or anyone else for that matter- what to take literally and what not. ”
I have never trusted you do it….from the beginning of this debate. That’s funny.
“You have taken all these posts literally, putting a big dent in your smug “did you take him literally?†attitude…”
You are entitled to your opinion.
“….and highlighting you are the least indicated person to help us elucidate when Pres Bush is to be taken literally.”
But you haven’t been able to do it yet! LOL!
“I would mention irony but you would try to debate the meaning of the word, and deny it is relevant in this context.”
I will mention it, because your inability to decipher when Bush is being sarcastic is clearly evident. I had the same problem with your comments.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:37 pmDismantle AIPAC…
…use the Patriot Act to “detain” and then exile the likes of…
…virulent venereal, T’rashy, and all of their TREASONOUS 30% DEAD-ENDER ilk…
…bring the criminal Bushites and their corporate co-conspirators to justice…
…and MAYBE…
…we can salvage this country…
March 19th, 2007 at 3:30 pm#538 You do realize he was impeached….don’t you?
Comment by Tracy —
I have decided to respond to this question after all. Yes, and who was leading the impeachment process in the House? None other than Newt Gingrich who was having an affair with a woman on his payroll for whom he ultimately dumped wife #2, thrice-married Bob Barr, and admitted adulterers Henry Hyde and Robert Livingstone. Superior Repug moral values indeed! Not to mention, pure hypocrisy!
March 19th, 2007 at 5:31 pmMeanwhile, the question of why a gay hooker/phony journalist was spending nights at the WH even on days when there were no press conferences remains unanswered.
Anyone watching Meet the Press yesterday HAD to see that Sestak absolutely destroyed Delay on the facts and logic….regardless of your view of the war.
I want to meet the mouth breathing, inbred moron who thinks that Tom Delay…whose military experience consist of killing cock roaches in his old job as the owner/operator of a pest control business, knows more about military strategy than a man who was a Task force commander and who has studied both the tactical and strategic aspects of was since he was a pleeb at Annapolis. I know most of the right wing zealots have never served in the military, but I have. And I know this….the US Navy is pretty damn careful to put the best and brightest in charge of a carrier group. Sestak proved that. He has twice the intellect and 3 times the balls of Mr. “what…me serve?” Tom Delay.
And a note to this Jake guy about the firing of the US Attorneys. Jake….every president appoints new US Attorneys when they are first elected. But NO president removes them in mid streak without cause. And an attorney investigating Duke Cunningham or not toeing the party line is NOT cause. With your thought process Jake, I can see why you are so in love with these guys.
March 19th, 2007 at 8:09 pm#572
Do you even know what Clinton was impeached? He wasn’t impeached for having an affair. He was impeached because he committed purjury.
March 19th, 2007 at 10:17 pm#573 I am pretty sure everyone knows Clinton was impeached for purjury…and not the BJ. And of course NO other man would lie about an affair under oath. The bigger question is why in the hell he was under oath about his sex life in the first place. I will give it to the Bushies on this one….no way would they EVER let Bush be deposed under oath. Hell…when he testified with his puppet master a few years back regarding 9-11 he would not even go under oath. And good thing….those 2 cannot speak without a lie sneaking out.
And yes Bush KNEW the Niger stuff was bogus when he gave the speach….Tenat had him remove it months earlier for being bad intel. What…it all of a sudden became true?
But only another 21 months and change to go. No matter which party takes the election, it has to be a huge improvement over these guys.
BTW Tracy…..you ever serve???? I didn’t think so.
March 19th, 2007 at 11:01 pmEverybody seems to have forgotten that Iraq is about (gasp) oil. The powers that be have all ganged up to have Iraq create and pass a bill in the so-called legislature to allow foreign investment and the major so-called U.S. oil companies to “develop” and mostly own the oil that comes from Iraq. Remember, please, that Iraq has what seems to be the second largest quantity of oil in the world. This is a law that in effect gives away almost 40% of the income to the oil companies, unlike almost every other agreement that countries have with the oil companies. They say, follow the money. Hell, in Iraq, follow the oil. That’s what our soldiers are being maimed and killed for. See her article at http://www.alternet.org/story/35846/ and you’ll begin to understand what it’s really all about.
March 20th, 2007 at 12:34 amHe(Clinton) was impeached because he committed purjury(SIC).
Comment by Tracy —
The name of the crime is PERJURY.
March 20th, 2007 at 1:04 amStill no explanation of why gay hooker/phony journalist Jeff Gannon/James Guckert was allowed noctural visits to the WH even on dates when there were not press conferences, eh? I wonder if Bush or Rove will commit perjury (or “purjury”) if ever questioned about this under oath.
What are you determined to equate what GE and MicroSoft see as their agenda on having to have an influence on what and/or MSNBC reports the news?
Comment by Tracy — March 19, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
Because GE (through NBC) and Microsoft are majority holders of MSNBC
As majority holders they have a huge say on how MSNBC does business. That is the case for any corporation, whether in the media business or otherwise. It is not their “agenda”, it is how businesses are run.
Olberman and Matthews are biased liberals and since you don’t watch either you really can’t speak intelligently about it.
I see. If I watch it then I am a liberal whose point of view is biased, and if I don’t I cannot discuss it intelligently.
But since this is not about what Olberman says or does but about MSNBC (that also employs Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, Don Imus, Rita Cosby, and used to employ Laura Ingraham, Pat Buchanan, and Michael Savage), I’d say I am on solid ground.
Why does the subsidiary have to fall in line with the political leanings of the parent company?
Who is the one with no business sense here? Ask yourself, why would two corporations spend millions of dollars on setting up a media outlet that would shape public opinion against them?
BTW what is the political affiliation of GE and Microsoft?
I don’t know -you tell me. I’d put my money on “not left”.
I don’t think GE or Microsoft are looking or caring too much about how and what MSNBC reports.
You think wrong.
Again they are looking at the profitablity of MSNBC and that their bias has a place in the MSM market.
You said MSNBC was a “left-wing mouthpiece”. That implies a political affinity that goes beyond money.
March 20th, 2007 at 1:30 amI will mention it, because your inability to decipher when Bush is being sarcastic is clearly evident. I had the same problem with your comments.
Comment by Tracy — March 19, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
You have special abilities and are able to read Pres Bush’s mind? Considering he hasn’t clarified his comment about not caring where Bin Laden is.
So everybody is wrong -but you?
Right, Tracy. Sure.
March 20th, 2007 at 1:32 amI want to know why Tom Delay was even on Meet the Press and why Russert found it necessary to promote Delay’s book on the air ? Delay is a crook and should not be legitimized, certainly there are more credible conservative voices that should have been sitting in that chair. Tim..you blew it.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:08 pm#578
“I see. If I watch it then I am a liberal whose point of view is biased, and if I don’t I cannot discuss it intelligently.”
If you did watch it you would see their liberal bias. Well then again considering you are liberal you wouldn’t see it.
“Tucker Carlson” – Is not conservative.
“Joe Scarborough” – Is mostly conservative.
“Don Imus”- Is definately not conservative.
“…and used to employ Laura Ingraham, Pat Buchanan, and Michael Savage”
Thanks for proving my point.
“Ask yourself, why would two corporations spend millions of dollars on setting up a media outlet that would shape public opinion against them?”
Why would you think that just because they allow liberals to dominate their news casts would make them care about political leanings of the broadcasters? It’s about the market place something you know little about. It’s about money.
“I don’t know -you tell me. I’d put my money on “not leftâ€.”
Right they are probably conservative but if you would watch their broadcasts with an open mind you would see their liberal bias.
“You said MSNBC was a “left-wing mouthpieceâ€. That implies a political affinity that goes beyond money.”
If you wish to infer that OK. I guess YOU would like to infer that FOX is a right-wing “mouth piece”.
March 25th, 2007 at 8:41 pm#579
“Considering he hasn’t clarified his comment about not caring where Bin Laden is.”
Why should he have to clarify? I understood why he said it…you didn’t.
“So everybody is wrong -but you?
Right, Tracy. Sure.”
Everybody? There is a very large segment of the U.S. population that understood Bush’s comment about “not caring” where bin Laden is, but obviously you aren’t in that category.
March 25th, 2007 at 8:44 pm#577
“Still no explanation of why gay hooker/phony journalist Jeff Gannon/James Guckert was allowed noctural visits to the WH even on dates when there were not press conferences, eh?”
Why don’t you explain it. Are you inferring that Bush is gay?
March 25th, 2007 at 8:45 pmWhy don’t you explain it. Are you inferring that Bush is gay?
Comment by Tracy
I already answered your second question.
March 26th, 2007 at 12:59 amAs for your first question, even you should know that it is not for me to explain. Representatives John Conyers and Louise Slaughter asked the White House for more information about the gay hooker’s visits over two years ago, and their request was denied. To paraphrase what you neo-CONS love to say about warrantless wiretapping, “Why worry if the WH has nothing to hide?”
In any case, be warned: any time I notice you bringing up Clinton’s BJ again, I will remind you of Gannon’s nocturnal visits to the WH. Tit for tat, boy.
#584
“In any case, be warned: any time I notice you bringing up Clinton’s BJ again, I will remind you of Gannon’s nocturnal visits to the WH. Tit for tat, boy.”
In that case I will be sure to ignore it little girl. Lets see if you can do the same. I doub’t it.
Again, for the record, are you saying Bush is gay?
“As for your first question, even you should know that it is not for me to explain.”
And you should know it’s not for me to explain either, so quit asking.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:55 pm#585
March 27th, 2007 at 1:41 amI will keep on asking, little boy, if you keep on going on ad nauseam about Clinton’s BJ. I was hoping to get you to think about why a gay hooker would be visiting the WH even when there were no press conferences to attend as a phony journalist. But I guess asking a hardheaded neoCON to think beyond a set of standard talking points is asking too much. I will be very happy to be ignored by you. Tit for tat, boy.
#586
I don’t bring up Clinton’s BJ per sey. I refer to his lying under oath and the fact that he was impeached. The fact that I refer to him as BJ Clinton must really strike a nerve with your feelings, but I don’t really care. You shouldn’t have voted for a president that has never been a faithful husband.
“But I guess asking a hardheaded neoCON to think beyond a set of standard talking points is asking too much.”
It’s irrelevant BS that no one other that far left continues to harp on in their little irrelevant conclaves. Other than accusations, by those with wild imaginations BTW who wanted to believe (that would be you) Bush is gay, was there anything of substance that came out of what you say you will bring up from now on every time I bring up Clinton’s impeachment?
Again for the record are you implying that Bush is gay? Do you think that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by the U.S. government?
March 27th, 2007 at 1:17 pm#587
March 27th, 2007 at 6:47 pmI thought you were going to ignore me. And why are you bringing up 9/11 here? I haven’t even mentioned it.
BTW, your constant reference to Clinton’s BJ doesn’t strike a nerve with me at all. What strikes a nerve with me is your harping on it, as if it’s an important issue some 6 years after he left the presidency and your hypocrisy in ignoring the fact that a gay hooker was visiting the Bush WH for unexplained reasons. For the record, yes, I think Gannon was sexually servicing someone in the WH; whether it was Bush, Rove or someone else, I can’t say. If the WH has nothing to hide, why has it refused Rep. Conyers’ and Slaughter’s request for information? Isn’t what you neoCONs always say in response to complaints about warrantless wiretapping?
As for whether faithful husbands make the best presidents or not, I myself am more concerned with how the man governs; his infidelity should be a matter between him and his wife, and perhaps the other woman. Moreover, if marital fidelity is such a big issue to you, how are you going to deal with the current Repub frontrunners for president: thrice-married and publicly unfaithful Guiliani, twice wed and admitted adulterer John McCain, thrice married Newt Gingrich who was cheating on wife #2 with his staffer (now wife #3) all the while trying to get Clinton impeached? Great moral leaders, I must say!
#588
“For the record, yes, I think Gannon was sexually servicing someone in the WH; whether it was Bush, Rove or someone else, I can’t say.”
So it’s pure speculation and basically a made up conspiricy theory on your part. This is why I asked if you thought 9/11 was an inside government job, because this theory of yours is just as wacked simple because there is zero proof of your accusation.
“What strikes a nerve with me is your harping on it, as if it’s an important issue some 6 years after he left the presidency”
Again I am not harping on Clinton’s BJ. I specifically refer to his lying under oath, lying to the American people on national television only to come back and attempt to apologize.
“As for whether faithful husbands make the best presidents or not, I myself am more concerned with how the man governs; his infidelity should be a matter between him and his wife”
So goes your low standards. The president the top leader who represents the country and if you are going to have an affair wait till you are out of office at least.
“Moreover, if marital fidelity is such a big issue to you, how are you going to deal with the current Repub frontrunners for president:”
I think Guiliani and McCain have already fessed up to their infidelity publically and they sure didn’t lie on national television like Clinton did. Clinton would have NEVER fessed up untill he got caught. I guess I am not as bothered by the fact the Clinton did it, but rather the fact the he did it in MY house and lied directly to my face about it and then tried to apologize.
March 28th, 2007 at 1:08 pmSo it’s pure speculation and basically a made up conspiricySIC) theory on your part. This is why I asked if you thought 9/11 was an inside government job, because this theory of yours is just as wacked simple because there is zero proof of your accusation.
So what’s the explanation for a gay hooker visiting the WH, when there were no press conferences and before Talon New for which he later worked was even established, if you think my idea is so whacky? Maybe he was giving massages like the ones Rev. Ted had?
March 28th, 2007 at 7:12 pmAnd do you know that Gingrich or others wouldn’t have lied under oath about affairs if they had been forced to take an oath?
As for Guiliani, yes, he announced his infidelity and intention to divorce his second wife at a public press conference. That’s how she and their children found out about it. You think my standards are low but find nothing low about a man with such great insensitivity towards the mother of his children?
Ps. Tracy,
March 28th, 2007 at 7:24 pmGuiliani was being openy unfaithful while living in Gracie Mansion, the official Mayor’s residence in NYC or the city’s equivalent to the White House. A judge even ruled that his second wife had the right to throw him out of it, though he was the elected official.
#590
“So what’s the explanation for a gay hooker visiting the WH, when there were no press conferences and before Talon New for which he later worked was even established, if you think my idea is so whacky?”
As I have told so many dim wits that throw out BS reasons for the WTC collapse…please provide evidence that explosives (one theory) were used. You need to provide some real EVIDENCE that any sexual misconduct took place inside the White House. Please…anything other that speculation. Again, I am not into conspiricy theories like you.
“And do you know that Gingrich or others wouldn’t have lied under oath about affairs if they had been forced to take an oath?”
If I am not mistake Clinton already confessed on national television before he gave his deposition to the grand jury.
“You think my standards are low but find nothing low about a man with such great insensitivity towards the mother of his children?”
When did I say that what Guiliani did was OK or that I don’t think it’s low for what he did? BTW what Gingrich was even lower.
March 28th, 2007 at 7:57 pmAgain, I am not into conspiricy(SIC) theories like you.
Comment by Tracy
I have never engaged in 9/11 conspiracy theories, so I’m not going to take the time to answer for other people here.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:30 pmI’m glad you agree that Gingrich was even lower.
Can we stop this now?
I’m not going to go into conspiracy theories I never brought up; and until there is a good explanation for why Gannon/Guckert ’s visits to the WH even when there were no press conferences, I will continue to remind you about him every time you rant on about Clinton’s BJ. Obviously I wasn’t witness to what went on, just as there usually aren’t witnesses to a rape. That doesn’t mean nothing happened in either case. You have been forewarned, and you have written nothing to change my mind.
Basta!
#593
“I’m not going to go into conspiracy theories I never brought up”
Your accusation that there was sexual misconduct in the White House without one shread of evidence that anything happened makes it a conspiracy theory along the same obsurd lines as those who think the 9/11 attacks were carried out by the U.S. government. Since you offer zero plausable evidence and nothing but innuendo, it is a conspiricy theory that you most certainly did bring up in this thread. Who else here is talking about it besides you, since you mention it to me?
“Obviously I wasn’t witness to what went on…”
Really? Apparently no one else saw anything the you and others want to believe happened. Again, you have no real evidence that ANYTHING sexual went on. Here is a question for you: Can you explain why Clinton pardoned Marc Rich just hours before he left office?
March 29th, 2007 at 10:05 am#595
Since you offer zero plausable evidence and nothing but innuendo, it is a conspiricySIC) theory that you most certainly did bring up in this thread.
Who else here is talking about it besides you, since you mention it to me?
comment by Tracy
Look up the meaning of “conspiracy;” your use of it in the case involving a gay hooker’s visits to the WH is overblown. You might also learn how to spell “conspiracy” if you’re going to keep on talking about it.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:35 pmLogs showing that Gannon/Guckert visited the WH on night when there were no press conferences and even before Talon News existed prove nothing, huh? Don’t tell me you wouldn’t be all over this if a hooker of any gender were known to be visiting the WH with a Democrat president.
Finally, you obviously don’t read or pay attention to every single post here and I don’t blame you if you don’t), but various people have mentioned Gannon/Guckert in various threads. I’m probably simply the only one who has warned you that I will give this back to you every time you bring up Clinton’s BJ. We all know about the BJ; we don’t need to hear about it endlessly a decade later.
I’m not going to extend this thread with a discussion of Marc Rich. Why don’t you ask his lawyer, Scooter Libby?
#595
“Look up the meaning of “conspiracy;†your use of it in the case involving a gay hooker’s visits to the WH is overblown.”
Conspiracy: An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. So having said that and since you have no proof of anywrong doing or illegal act…it is a conspiracy theory.
“Don’t tell me you wouldn’t be all over this if a hooker of any gender were known to be visiting the WH with a Democrat president.”
I wouldn’t be accusing a democratic president or administration of illegal activity if I didn’t have any real evidence. You, however, don’t seem to have trouble doing it.
“…but various people have mentioned Gannon/Guckert in various threads.”
That’s why I said in this thread and since you mentioned it to me.
“We all know about the BJ; we don’t need to hear about it endlessly a decade later.”
I mention the lying to a grand jury part and the impeachment, which was not because he got a BJ. I doesn’t make a difference to me what he lied about.
“I’m not going to extend this thread with a discussion of Marc Rich. Why don’t you ask his lawyer, Scooter Libby?”
Wht don’t you just say I don’t know? I already did multple times about the gay hooker in the White House.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:14 pm#597
March 29th, 2007 at 7:01 pmI told you, after being pressed by you several times, what I thought a gay hooker’s visits to the WH meant; I didn’t make specific accusations.
Can we stop this already? Since you have no explanation of why a gay hooker would be visiting the WH, clearly not as a reporter, you are not going to be changing my mind. Moreover, you can say you wouldn’t make accusations about a Dem president if a hooker of any gender were making nocturnal visits to the WH, but I am sure you would be suspicious.
Finally, Marc Rich’s pardon has no more to do with this thread than Bush Sr.’s pardons of the various men implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal.
#597
“I didn’t make specific accusations”
You didn’t?
From #588
“For the record, yes, I think Gannon was sexually servicing someone in the WH; whether it was Bush, Rove or someone else, I can’t say.”
“…you are not going to be changing my mind”
I am not trying to. I am just pointing out that you have zero proof.
“…but I am sure you would be suspicious.”
Yes I too would by suspicious, but I wouldn’t make accusations without proof like you did.
“Finally, Marc Rich’s pardon has no more to do with this thread than Bush Sr.’s pardons of the various men implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal.”
I know I was just seeing if you could answer a question of my own considering you kept asking me the same question over and over after I told you I don’t know.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:13 am#599
March 30th, 2007 at 2:38 pmYou asked what I thought Gannon/Guckert’s visits meant a number of times; I simply gave you my answer. There is not much else I can conclude about a hooker still advertising his (or her, for that matter) services for $200/hr. even while showing up at the WH even before the website Talon News existed.
If you look at the thread on USA Today’s article about Clinton’s sex life, you will see much stronger “accusations” about Bush and Gannon than mine. I really would like to end this. You have your opinion, and I have mine.
Should have written to #598
March 30th, 2007 at 3:03 pmI any case, you asked me a few times what I thought Gannon/Guckert’s visits meant. Then, when I gave you my honest opinion, you started accusing me of making “groundless accusations.” Not groundless to me, when logs about Gannon’s many visits to the WH exist, and the Bush crowd has refused to provide Reps. John Conyers and Louise Slaughter information about the hooker’s visits to the WH.
Don’t you conservatives always say about warrantless wiretapping, “Why worry if you have nothing to hide?” Maybe Bush should be put under oath like Clinton.
And I probably will not reply to you any more about this here; it’s gone on too long already.
Anyway as to my last comment i can only think that we are getting to deep into this and a change of subject would do us all good just my 10 cents worth.
April 7th, 2007 at 8:44 amJosephina
A Trackback is one of three types of Linkbacks, methods for Web authors to request notification when somebody links to one of their documents.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:03 amRetire Site Msnbc Msn Com
Thanks for this post!
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:35 amChubby Grannies Chubby Granny Masturbate Pussy Big Tit Chubby Grannys
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 6:15 amBig Tits Asian Boobs Lactating Tits
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 7:24 amVacation Rental Travel Search Engines Costa Rica Travel
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 8:26 pmBig Tits Soft Tits Hot Tits
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 5th, 2008 at 2:21 pmIsla Fisher Pic
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
April 6th, 2008 at 7:08 amGay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 8:05 pmChubby Grannies Chubby Blonde Mature Chubby Mature Thumbs
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 8th, 2008 at 10:53 pmBoobs Unreal Boobs Boobies
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 11th, 2008 at 10:39 pmJack
Geat post. I added you to my blog roll!
April 13th, 2008 at 6:00 amPayday Loans
April 13th, 2008 at 6:06 amGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 13th, 2008 at 3:25 pmBoobs Giant Tits Gigantic Boobs
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 14th, 2008 at 4:31 am