White House Unconvincingly Claims It Was Unaware Oval Office Guest Oversaw Mass Civilian Killings
White House Unconvincingly Claims It Was Unaware Oval Office Guest Oversaw Mass Civilian Killings
On Monday, President Bush hosted in the Oval Office the co-chairs of a U.S.-Russian commission on missing soldiers. Human rights groups were outraged that Bush agreed to host the Russian chair, Gen. Vladimir Shamanov, who has been “accused of overseeing some of the most notorious atrocities against civilians during the brutal second war in Chechnya”:
Russian troops under Shamanov rampaged through the village of Alkhan-Yurt in December 1999, killing 17 civilians, according to human rights investigations. The soldiers looted homes and shot those who got in the way, including a woman over 100 years old. Shamanov threatened to shoot villagers who pleaded with him to halt the “cleansing operation,” investigators found. Rather than prosecute, the Kremlin gave Shamanov a medal — a medal he appeared to wear to the Oval Office.
According to spokeswoman Dana Perino, the White House had no idea that Shamanov was responsible for the brutal killings of civilians:
The president was not aware of the allegations made against (Shamanov) and he was seeking to sharpen the focus on the commissions good work.
She added that it was “unlikely” the meeting would have taken place had he been aware. But in a quick Google search of “Vladimir Shamanov,” references to the general’s role in the killings come up on the first page. Also, even though Bush “posed for pictures” with both Shamanov and the American chair of the commission, the “White House did not play up the officers’ appearance in the Oval Office” and it is not mentioned on the White House’s website on March 26.
So either the White House is not vetting the guests who visit the President in the Oval Office, or it knowingly invited a mass murderer and tried to bury the story.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Perino is about as believable as anybody else associated with this administration, which is to say don’t take anything these people say at face value.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:16 pm“Unconvincingly Claims?! Why isn’t this YET ANOTHER “lie”?
March 29th, 2007 at 3:17 pmHmm, I’ll go with option A. I think we’re aware of the crack staff they have tasking care of these sorts of things over there. The West Wing, this is not.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:17 pmaMERICAN mASS MURDERER(bUSH) MEET rUSSUIAN mASS mURDERER, rUSSIAN mASS mURDERER, MEET aMERICAN MASS mURDERER
**shakes hands**
March 29th, 2007 at 3:18 pmWe should invade Russia, and convert them to Christianity. We have to fight the terrorists over there, so we don’t fight them here.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:18 pmI like PURPLE!
March 29th, 2007 at 3:18 pmi’m surprised he wasn’t outfitted for a medal of freedom.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:19 pmW has to have set a record for how many times a president has claimed ignorance after a huge F-up.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:19 pmBut, I would bet a million billion dollars that if any of us, trolls included, were to go to the White house, it would come with a full background check by the CIA and a body cavity search by Nurse Ratchet.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:19 pm“Unconvincingly Claims?! Why isn’t this YET ANOTHER “lie�
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
You believe the secret service that oversees the safety of the White House wouldn’t know about a *mass-murderer*?
You know what unconvincing claims, are, right JakeOff? Like you’re a 75 year old Independent. dum bass.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:20 pm“Unconvincingly Claims?! Why isn’t this YET ANOTHER “lie�
Comment by Jake
It does seem to be an opinion headline, doesn’t it? Granted I’m just as unconvinced but still…
March 29th, 2007 at 3:20 pm“Rather than prosecute, the Kremlin gave Shamanov a medal — a medal he appeared to wear to the Oval Office.”
Do you suppose that is roughly equivalent to the medal of freedom we give here?
March 29th, 2007 at 3:21 pmYa, seriously, Jake’s claims that he’s a 75 year old veteran independent are awesome. 75 year olds frequently use the term “LOL”, and are capable of pumping out several posts a minute on an online comments section.
My guess: he’s in the 25-35 segment, works in an unsatisfying job where he takes orders from someone he thinks is incompetent, doesn’t have a significant other, blames a good amount of his life’s dissatisfaction on affirmative action, political correctness, and feminism. I am almost certain he pays for companionship on occasion.
IF JAKE PAID LAURA BUSH $2 TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HER, DON’T YOU THINK THE LA TIMES WOULD REPORT ON IT????
March 29th, 2007 at 3:27 pmCONservative:
Obviously, I would be very concerned if the Secret Service did not know — at least they know about Webb packing heat now — now so worried if Bush didn’t know. Look at me, I just forgot Grassley was a Republican on the other thread ; )
March 29th, 2007 at 3:27 pmPretty funny coming from the crowd that wants to surrender our nation to those fun loving Islamists. The left’s selective outrage is always good for a few laughs.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:27 pmI wear lacy undies.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:29 pmBush – Unaware
That’s sort of like saying “Fish – Wet”.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:30 pmBushCo is taking ignorance as an excuse to a new level in every area.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:31 pmWHo would we surrender to, the Sunni or the Shia? Tell us oh wise one who the enemy is that we would surrender to.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:33 pm“Unconvincingly Claims?! Why isn’t this YET ANOTHER “lie�
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
Because unlike most of the other boners they pull, where we have the evidence to directly refute them, this time we have no way of knowing if they are lying to us or just stupid.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:34 pm#15 Bahhhh.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:34 pmObviously, I would be very concerned if the Secret Service did not know — at least they know about Webb packing heat now — now so worried if Bush didn’t know. Look at me, I just forgot Grassley was a Republican on the other thread ; ) Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 3:27 pm11
Another *broken* troll. Can’t someone send a GOP twerp with at least a half a brain? These wanna-be smart guys like Exley and Jake have their heads so far up their own *sses, they’re just Borrriiiinnnngggg Zzzzzz….
March 29th, 2007 at 3:34 pmIs this Administration aware of ANYTHING?
March 29th, 2007 at 3:36 pmWe all know Bush doesn’t know how to use teh Google. No big shocker here.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:37 pmbut…but…but…Clinton!
March 29th, 2007 at 3:38 pmYeah, so? You think the Decider takes the time to use “the Google” to research facts on “the Internets”? I thought he only uses “the Google” to pull up maps (Bushie like pretty picture!)
I think Cheney was going to use “the Google” to look up this Russian guy, but Senator Stevens hadn’t finished backing up the trucks to the tubes yet. The Internets are like a series of tubes, ya know.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:38 pmPatrick1:
I also missed the memo on the specifics of surrender. I would like to surrender to the Islamists. What actions do I need to take? Will our surrender be formal or informal?
And will it consist of continuing to have all of our available military fighting a non-threat while allowing people who actually have threatened and carried out attacks against the United States to regroup and gain influence?
Toolbox. Go watch FoxNews, go bitch some more about how Iraq is all the Dems fault, and cry more when the Dems take more seats and the Presidency in 08. The rest of us have work to do: i.e. fixing your huge mess.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:39 pmHell, I learned that vetting guests is important from the West Wing. Didn’t they watch any episodes?
March 29th, 2007 at 3:39 pmFirst this:
Since I have admitted to that, yes, I did vote for JFK and, being Catholic myself, I’ve got plenty of funny Catholic jokes.
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Followed by this:
CONservative:
Southern Baptist here too — we are going to have to agree to disagree that Bush is anywhere close to a KING though
Comment by Jake — March 26, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Most people would agree one of these statements (or perhaps both) is a wanton, bold-face lie.
For Jake, of course, it is a simple “inaccuracy” or a “misstatement”.
That is why Gonzales’ “inaccuracies” and Pres Bush’s “faulty” intelligence on Iraq does not bother the cultists in the least. Lying comes naturally to them, and they’ve come to expect it.
(Although I suspect our troll Jake is more than a mindless follower: I get the feeling he is here to cut his teeth at making up excuses for the Leader -hence the repetitious nature of his posts)
March 29th, 2007 at 3:43 pmPretty funny coming from the crowd that wants to surrender our nation to those fun loving Islamists. The left’s selective outrage is always good for a few laughs. Comment by Patrick1
Pretty funny coming from the crowd that allowed bin Laden to execute the worst terrorist attack ever on U.S. soil without retribution.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:44 pmThis Mr. evil is small potatoes compared to cheney/ bush bunch….Hell he isn’t even on the richter or wrecker scale compared to our most evil in charge…Add up the number’s….Bet they knew and now bush is compairing note’s……Yawn ZZZZZZZZZZZZ…Wake me when the madness is over and tell me when it’s Friday, again..
March 29th, 2007 at 3:45 pm#29 Gregor Samsa
Hey, that’s not fair! You’re smearing poor Jake with his own quotes. What a dirty liberal trick–using facts.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:48 pmOn topic,
Since when the Bush administration has qualms about mass murderers and assorted autocrats?
Isn’t Pakistan’s Musharraf a stalwart ally in the “war on terror”? Didn’t Uzbekistan’s Karimov enjoy Pres Bush’s support -even after reports of the Andijan massacre were known?
I am shocked -shocked, I tell ya!- to learn they probably knew about Shamanov’s actions in Chechnya but didn’t care.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:49 pmThey’re either lying or they’re stupid.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:49 pmSince the left had many opportunities to fight the Islamists in the 1990s and failed to do so and recently voted to inform them of the time when we will surrender Iraq to them you are missing alot but I’m not surprised given the left’s belief that the United States is not worth defending under any circumstances.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:50 pmFor the record, that was the fake Jake on March 19, 2007 @ 1:18 pm — I am not a Catholic.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:51 pmComment by chimpeach — March 29, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
LOL
Actually, I owe a hat tip to another poster here at ThinkProgress to noticed it first. I believe their monker is/was pgw.
Funny stuff, those facts -eh?
March 29th, 2007 at 3:52 pm‘Curveball’ probably vouched for Gen. Shamanov’s character so, no problem. Nothing to see here.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:54 pmYeah and your an Independent too.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:02 pm#35, Hi. You’re a liar.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:03 pm#25 has a good point….How many time did President Clinton have the mass murderer Yasser Arafat visit the White House?
March 29th, 2007 at 4:05 pmSince the left had many opportunities to fight the Islamists in the 1990s and failed to do so and recently voted to inform them of the time when we will surrender Iraq to them you are missing alot but I’m not surprised given the left’s belief that the United States is not worth defending under any circumstances.
Comment by Patrick1 — March 29, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
Don’t look now, but your ignorance is showing. Calling them Islamists shows you are very ignorant about Islam. All the rest of that post just shows how willfully stupid you are.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:08 pmShamanov is probably both a Bush “Pioneer” and a Halliburton employee – perhaps the sham-inistration will create a US attorney post for him.
GOP Jesus says: “Keep killing…it’s all good.”
March 29th, 2007 at 4:09 pmI was the 1st fake Jake, and I didn’t start posting until about a week ago.
Sadly, Jake is a misrepresenter. Is he a liar? Discuss.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:12 pmWhy has the left taken the position not to fight Islamo Fascism?
March 29th, 2007 at 4:14 pmI don’t think Swordsbane realizes the difference in meaning between “Islam” and “Islamism,” as well as between “Muslims” and “Islamists.”
March 29th, 2007 at 4:14 pmBirds of a feather…
March 29th, 2007 at 4:16 pmFor the record, that was the fake Jake on March 19, 2007 @ 1:18 pm — I am not a Catholic.
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
LIE.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:16 pm#35,
Sorry, that might have been a bit harsh. Willfully blind?
Also, off-topic. Or else I’d love to hear the history of Iraq as told by you, in which you attempt to weave a narrative that fits your beliefs and knowledge.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:16 pmComment by Exley — March 29, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
And Rumsfeld loved him some Saddam Hussein back in the day too.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:17 pmI don’t think Swordsbane realizes the difference in meaning between “Islam†and “Islamism,†as well as between “Muslims†and “Islamists.â€
Comment by Exley — March 29, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
Islamist refers to those who are of Islam. Islam is not our enemy, stupid Republicans who make fanatics hate our guts… That is our enemy.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:20 pmPatrick1, why do I have a feeling you are capable of throwing terms like Islamofascists around but not capable of 1) defining them, 2) applying them to what’s happening in Iraq, or 3) defending the worldview that informs such definitions?
It’s so easy to attack, Patrick1, but much harder to defend.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:20 pmNot to mention Christianists.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:21 pmWhere is that Rumsfeld/Hussein buddy-buddy pic at nowadays? It’s precious.
GOP Jesus says: “Just lie about everything…it’s all good.”
March 29th, 2007 at 4:21 pmAmericaphobia: Final Thoughts
Dean
I have not yet had a chance to read Ali’s latest, or really anything else on the Dean’s World front page today. I’ve been too busy. But I’ve had all day to think about this and I’m going to lay out something I’ve been thinking for a long time:
It’s very hard for me to look at American Muslims, or Muslims in general, or anyone who considers themselves “liberal” or “progressive” or “humanist,” who claim to stand for freedom and human rights and then attack everything America has done and tried to do in Iraq over the last four years.
The fact is that the naysayers claimed we weren’t really striving for liberation. We were. They claimed we’d install a new puppet dictator. We did not. They claimed that we wouldn’t really try to set up a democracy. We did. They claimed there would be no legitimate elections. The Iraqis had three national elections in a row, all certified as legitimate by international observers, not even counting the local elections that were held before that.
They claimed we’d do everything possible to get out of the country “before the next elections”–they claimed that before the 2004 elections and again before the 2006 elections. It didn’t happen. Now these same people in many cases are cheering for a Congress that’s trying to force us out of Iraq even though the war supporters consistently say “no, that would be morally and strategically wrong.”
Time after time the naysayers have proven themselves both morally and intellectually incoherent, and yet they never have the introspection to acknowledge this.
Furthermore, anyone calling himself a “liberal” or a “humanist”–Muslim or not–is in my view faced with a stark choice:
You either sit around pretending that a vicious, murderous, fascist “insurgency” that routinely cuts people’s heads off and shoots children in the face is the “legitimate voice of the Iraqi people,” or you recognize that there is in Iraq a government elected by the Iraqi people working under a Constitution written entirely by Iraqis that recognizes human rights better than any in the Arab world.
No matter how many reservations you have about how it was done or how imperfectly that elected government implements the ideals expressed in that ratified Constitution.
If you take the former position you have no business calling yourself a liberal or a progressive or a humanist. If you take the latter position, then maybe you have to swallow the bitter pill that someone named George Bush, whom you don’t like and maybe think is incompetent, was the instigator of something that damn well needs to be supported.
But you can’t have it both ways. Indeed, by declaring the whole thing illegitimate, all you’re doing is siding with the Islamophobes of the world who claim the Muslims and the Arabs are far too savage, backward, and primitive to respect things like democracy and human rights. Indeed, you’re implicitly siding the the Jihadwatch crowd.
It’s high time someone told you people this, whether you’re Muslims or not.
The progressive, humanist position is not, and never has been, the “anti-war” position.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:22 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqM4tKPDlR8 Blackwater: Shadow Army
March 29th, 2007 at 4:23 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8mfGx_wuvQ&mode=related&search= Blackwater
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3zPt0ysxgg&mode=related&search= Blackwater
Part 2
I think I would know if I am a Catholic or not.
P.S. to anyone (NOT on the “Ignore Listâ€) who doesn’t understand my comments “For the record” above may appear to be prompted by idiotic comments from those on the “Ignore List” but in no shape or form are intended to be actual responses to said persons, real or fictional. We now return to your regularly scheduled pogrom.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:29 pm#55 Thank you Rain Man, for another brilliant cut and paste.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:30 pmSounds like par for the course.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:30 pmpatrick-needs-1 thinks that human rights are being respected in Iraq. I guess that’s why over a million people felt the need to flee the country!
March 29th, 2007 at 4:34 pmMonkey Boy CHIMPya LOOKED UP Murdering Creep Shamanov’s ANUS and saw HIS SOUL and THAT HE WAS A GOOD MAN, like DESPOT PIPSQUEAK Vladimir “Murderer” Putin!!!!! TAKES A MASS-MURDERING CREEP LIKE CHIMPya TO KNOW OTHER MASS-MURDERERS LIKE Shamanov and Putin!!!!!
March 29th, 2007 at 4:34 pmFor the record, that was the fake Jake on March 19, 2007 @ 1:18 pm — I am not a Catholic.
Comment by Jake
I have no doubt this is a lie, but whoever is using Jake’s name is giving him a way out every time he trots out another lie.
Just sayin’
March 29th, 2007 at 4:35 pm#62 I truly believe he posts weird stuff under his own name to give himself an out. Anytime his lithium levels slip and he types something bizarre he can then just say it was somebody else.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:38 pmPatrick1, that is jsut about the stupidest piece of drivel I’ve ever read. The reason progressives opposed the war is because the language AT THE TIME THE WAR WAS ABOUT TO HAPPEN was not the language of democracy or freedom or liberation. It was the language of destruction and payback and hatred, because the Bush administration and tools like you had claimed that Saddam was involved in 9/11, and that he was developing weapons and Al Qaeda agents (which were invisible, apparently) to strike again with another 9/11 type attack.
Further, while the dittoheads were claiming that Iraq would be a walk in the park, and decrying “Islamist sympathizers” like Juan Cole, who predicted that Iraq would be a bloody sectarian mess, that our occupation of it would be nigh impossible, etc. etc. etc. These are the people you like to call “liberal academia”. Outside of rightwing radio, they are frequently called “experts”. And as it turned out they were correct. And the reason, Mr. Cynic Mc-You’re Going to Hell, that Iraq was not the ideal place for Democratic experimentation, had nothing to do with the fact that they were Muslim, and no prominent liberal has claimed that (thank you Mr. Strawman), but because we were trying to implement democracy at the end of a gun, in a country that was historically an artifical congregation of different tribes that had been ruled by brute force to keep it together.
Finally, the fact that dip$hits like yourself went schlepping over to Iraq, armed with your latest AEI-approved libertarian theories on democracy (which don’t work, never have worked, and never will work, unless the purpose is to achieve social unrest, misery, and a high concentration of wealth in a tiny group of people, see, e.g. 80s Latin America; see also post-invasion Iraq), instead of actually trying to help people’s needs.
You people are frankly evil. You should go back to your evil little nest of Freepers.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:41 pm“Islamist refers to those who are of Islam.”
No, Swordsbane, “Islamism” is a political-theological ideological hybrid that demands one’s complete and strict adherence to the sacred law of Islam and rejects as much as possible outside influence, with some exceptions (such as access to military and medical technology).
It amounts to an effort to turn Islam, a religion and civilization, into an political system, whereby the strict fundamnetalist Islamic law becomes the statutory law of the state.
Not all Muslims are Islamists. Even Al Jazeera uses the term “Islamist” when referring to Bin Laden/Al Qaeda types who are hostile to the West and wish to create Taliban-like Islamic fundamentalist states.
Again, most followers of Islam are not Islamists.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:41 pmNice cut and paste Patty, have some original material?
March 29th, 2007 at 4:42 pm#62, Zooey,
I have no idea why this is an issue — Why does it matter if Jake is Catholic or not? Did I miss something? I see this topic referenced a lot and I don’t know why… Why is a poster’s religious affiliation being discussed? I am not trying to start an argument — Just want to know why this is a subject of discussion.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:44 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2BgGlpBVew Stop Spraying Us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBjDSNWiuKQ Aerosol Attack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c70v01Yii48
http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=172324
March 29th, 2007 at 4:44 pmAwesome TV.
Because the people we want to go after are TERRORISTS. They are in AFGHANISTAN and PAKISTAN. They are funded by DUBAI and SAUDI ARABIA.
We aren’t at war with Muslims. We are supposed to be fighting crazy fu*kers that want to blow up buildings. Remember that? Do you really remember 9/11 as Bush wants you to or was that just your New Pearl Harbor and what really happened doesn’t matter to you.
Fu*k it, just ignore the hard questions Patrick1. Remain ignorant.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:44 pmAgain, most followers of Islam are not Islamists.
Comment by Exley — March 29, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Just like most followers of Christianity and Judaism, aren’t fascist like yourself. Dum bass.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:47 pmI have no idea why this is an issue — Why does it matter if Jake is Catholic or not? Did I miss something? I see this topic referenced a lot and I don’t know why… Why is a poster’s religious affiliation being discussed? I am not trying to start an argument — Just want to know why this is a subject of discussion. Comment by Exley — March 29, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
Because he said he was a Catholic, then said he was a Baptist. It’s called a *credibility-gap*. A factor you should be familiar with – twerp.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:48 pm#67 Because you can’t be Southern Baptist and Catholic at the same time.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:49 pmThank you for your rather colorful response to my question, VVGFU.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:53 pmJake sez:
Well, apparently, you’re wrong about that too, as Gregor so aptly pointed out.
(Oh, and ‘for the record’, Jake, your pathetic little lie about being namejacked isn’t fooling anyone. Anyone interested in finding the truth only needs to follow the links Gregor supplied, and reread the whole thread. Your inane posting style is like a fingerprint…it’s obviously you on both occasions.)
God, you’re a joke, Jake. The more you protest that your posts aren’t actually in response to me, the more patently obvious it becomes that they are.
But by all means, keep up your infantile little act of plugging your ears and frantically pretending we aren’t here. Watching you make a complete idiot of yourself by employing grade-school tactics to try to evade your betters never gets old.
March 29th, 2007 at 4:58 pmThank you for your rather colorful response to my question, VVGFU.
Comment by Exley — March 29, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
Thank you for your rather irrelevant, and st*pid response to everything. You remind everyone on the planet why the GOP is full of st*pid self serving cowards and weasels. You useless little piece of sh*t.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:01 pmVVGFU,
Are you still mad that I criticized your favorite comedian Carlos Mencia????
March 29th, 2007 at 5:08 pmExley:
I am not Catholic — I have told them so repeatedly. The “fake Jake” however posted that I was Catholic — now, they want to use that to “prove” to everyone that I lied. Sound familiar to anything Sampson / Gonzales going through?
March 29th, 2007 at 5:12 pmAre you still mad that I criticized your favorite comedian Carlos Mencia???? Comment by Exley — March 29, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Are you still mad because I don’t give a sh*t about your ignorant opinion? Who the fcuk cares about Mencia? Seriously son, are you brain damaged, or just naturally born st*pid?
March 29th, 2007 at 5:12 pm“So either the White House is not vetting the guests who visit the President in the Oval Office, or it knowingly invited a mass murderer and tried to bury the story.”
Guess which.
While you’re googling, check out Posada Carriles, an admited terrorist who Bushco is harboring in the U.S. Or Islam Karimov’s record. Or check out Bush’s speech at Gorey Island. If you think they don’t know what they are doing, then you won’t either understand Cheney’s “STAFF” beanie at Auschwitz in 2004.
Oh, wait, some guy named ‘Paul in LA’ already pointed it out, on a site known as ‘ThinkProgress’:
“Sep 16, ‘05, 10:06 AM
Bush, talking about his junta: “a cruel and wasteful storm.â€
So similar to the speech he gave at Gorey Island, Senegal:
“The spirit of Africans in America did not break. Yet the spirit of their captors was corrupted. Small men took on the powers and airs of tyrants and masters. Years of unpunished brutality and bullying and rape produced a dullness and hardness of conscience. Christian men and women became blind to the clearest commands of their faith and added hypocrisy to injustice. A republic founded on equality for all became a prison for millions.†(July 8, 2003)
He loves talking about himself, and feeling superior to the people he’s gulling.”
March 29th, 2007 at 5:16 pmJake,
I don’t care if you are Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, Buddhist, or an atheist or whatever. None of my business. I was just curious why it was always being brought up. Sorry you were the victim of a name-jacker.
Now, if you’ll excuse me — I think VVGFU and I are on the verge of a major breakthrough. We are getting to root cause of his anger.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:22 pmI have no idea why this is an issue — Why does it matter if Jake is Catholic or not? Did I miss something? I see this topic referenced a lot and I don’t know why… Why is a poster’s religious affiliation being discussed? I am not trying to start an argument — Just want to know why this is a subject of discussion.
Comment by Exley
Have I been around much today? No, I don’t think so. Why are you asking me?
I don’t give a flying f*ck if Jake, or anyone else, is Catholic or Zoroastrian. I’m talking about another commenter using his name.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:24 pmZooey,
I asked you because you wrote on the topic in posting #62. I thought you’d be able to tell me. Now, I know.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:29 pmThe president probably not. He isnt the brightest bulb in the candle. But his advisors DID.
Just like any other mass murderer in the world, he is invited to the White House as long as he kills people with proudly made in US weaponry and chemicals.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:33 pmI asked you because you wrote on the topic in posting #62. I thought you’d be able to tell me. Now, I know.
Comment by Exley
Yes, I addressed the name-jacking. No, I did not address the religion issue. I assume everything Jake says is a lie or obfuscation.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:40 pmNow you know.
“Islamist refers to those who are of Islam.â€
No, Swordsbane, “Islamism†is a political-theological ideological hybrid that demands one’s complete and strict adherence to the sacred law of Islam and rejects as much as possible outside influence, with some exceptions (such as access to military and medical technology).
It amounts to an effort to turn Islam, a religion and civilization, into an political system, whereby the strict fundamnetalist Islamic law becomes the statutory law of the state.
Not all Muslims are Islamists. Even Al Jazeera uses the term “Islamist†when referring to Bin Laden/Al Qaeda types who are hostile to the West and wish to create Taliban-like Islamic fundamentalist states.
Again, most followers of Islam are not Islamists.
Comment by Exley — March 29, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
I didn’t say that followers of Islam are all Islamists. I said “Islamist means followers of Islam” Just like not all Christians are Chrisitian fundamentalists, but all Christian fundamentalists are Christians.
In any case, my statement still stands: Our enemies are not the Islamists. They are the ones who give the Islamists what they want: a target for their hatred and justification for their violence… as I said, Republicans.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:43 pmCurrently the Democrats in Congress are giving the Islamists what they want, America’s surrender of Iraq to them.
And perhaps a moonbat could explain how mass murder of civilians or cutting a journalists head off is justified?
March 29th, 2007 at 5:47 pmZooey,
Like Paul Harvey, “Now I know ….. the rest of the story.”
March 29th, 2007 at 5:49 pmWere the four attacks on America in the 1990s by Islamo Fascism justified and were they the fault of Republicans?
March 29th, 2007 at 5:51 pmor cutting a journalists head off is justified?
Comment by Patrick1
I think those are scheduled to visit the White House next week.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:52 pm“And perhaps a moonbat could explain how mass murder of civilians or cutting a journalists head off is justified?”–Patrick1
Bushco installed Ustad Allawi walked up to six uncharged detainees and shot them point blank with his pistol. How do you justify that?
And, Fallujah, taking revenge on an entire city IS mass murder of civilians.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:55 pmHow many people died in those four attacks, Patrick?
You folks are SUCH liars.
March 29th, 2007 at 5:56 pmI think those are scheduled to visit the White House next week.
No doubt, they were in the Senate today.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:00 pmJake, the problem is that you lie on such a regular basis, that nobody belives you, even if there is a fake Jake. We know you and your type. If you weren’t so bent on lying about everything, people might give you some credit every now and then. But you are nothing but a liar, so we don’t give a fu*k about your dumb a$$.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:00 pmApproximately 400. Do you have a number that is high enough before the left will fight Islamo Fascism, 400 wasn’t it and 3,000 wasn’t it. Perhaps you can come up with a figure that will stir the left away from worrying about multiculturalism and get in this fight.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:02 pmCurrently the Democrats in Congress are giving the Islamists what they want, America’s surrender of Iraq to them.
Comment by Patrick1 — March 29, 2007 @ 5:47
The Republicans already gave Iraq to them. The terrorists weren’t in Iraq until we let them in. I’d say that qualifies as a Republican Faux Pas. Now they’re trying to take it back with the same strategy, just using more men. Not a sound decision. The Democrats want to cut our losses or at least radically alter our strategy.
As for the other terrorist attacks, we have been playing in this sandbox we call the middle east for decades and they rightfully resent it. If you keep poking a snake with a stick until it bites you, is the snake bad or are you stupid?
March 29th, 2007 at 6:02 pmOkay, Paul in LA can’t answer the question. Next.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:03 pm#79 > then you won’t either understand Cheney’s “STAFF†beanie at Auschwitz in 2004.
Isn’t this going a bit too far? I remember has was not exactly … well dressed for the occasion, but I don’t remember that STAFF beanie.
Also, Russians kill civvies between long draughts on Vodka bottles (it’s traditional), so what’s the surprise here. Which reminds me to take a little sip myself. Nasdrovye!
March 29th, 2007 at 6:30 pmpattycake1
If you’re refering, in part to the first attack on the world trade center, you are forgeting that those people were caught, tried in open court, convicted because they weren’t tortured, and are now in prison. While, we’re on the topic, let’s talk about all the republican terrorism in the 90’s: OK city, the rightwing religious waco cult that attacked law officers, Weaver up in Idaho, those cuban republicans who took a little boy hostage.
March 29th, 2007 at 6:36 pmOf course they let him in. He was interviewing for a job at Guantanamo.
Cheers,
March 29th, 2007 at 7:24 pmWhile it’s great that President Bush is holding talks with world leaders over missing soldiers, I think he can go a step further and hold talks over global poverty. Specifically, the UN Millenniu Development Goals to end global poverty that he agreed to in 2000. The Bush administration has not held up its promise and is spending money to fund war instead. According to The Borgen Project, a group that lobbies political leaders to focus on poverty, states that just $19 billion annually can end starvation and malnutrition and just $12 billion can provide education for every child in the world. In contrast, we have a $522 billion military budget this year to fight terror and bring peace. I think the money is better spent on supporting the Millennium Goals and finding ways to end poverty.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:40 pmNasdrovye!
Comment by El Tonno
Do you speak russian? I forgot a lot this 5 years.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:49 pmBush and his staff are so brain dead it would not surprise me if no one actually knew this Russian was a conspirator to mass murder. The fact that no one knew again relegates Bush and his team to the category of the criminally irresponsible.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:11 pmdoesn’t your secretary of state hold a Phd in Russian/Soviet history??
March 30th, 2007 at 12:16 am“#79 > then you won’t either understand Cheney’s “STAFF†beanie at Auschwitz in 2004.
“Isn’t this going a bit too far? I remember has was not exactly … well dressed for the occasion, but I don’t remember that STAFF beanie.” –El Tonno
His BEANIE said “STAFF Sept. 11, 2001.”
He wore a beanie to Auschwitz which said STAFF. He was the only person there wearing a message, and if you don’t think Dick knew what the ramifications were, you don’t know Dick.
March 30th, 2007 at 6:39 am“Approximately 400. Do you have a number that is high enough before the left will fight Islamo Fascism, 400 wasn’t it and 3,000 wasn’t it.” –Patrick1
Fighting Homegrown Fascism, which has thrown away innocent and honorable lives in a hugely profitable TREASON, is a lot more important than the arch terrorists Bushco can barely capture, after letting them go.
• Bush and Rumsfeld failed to guard 380 metric tons of high-explosives. These materials are now blowing up people all over Iraq, and soon all over the world. PETN alone, Bush and Rumsfeld released enough to blow up 16,000 airliners.
Patrick, your argument was tired BEFORE Bush and Rumsfeld committed that act of treason. Now? Now we want DIFFERENT guards of our national security, because YOUR GUYS SUCK (and you suck).
March 30th, 2007 at 6:45 amI would just like to say that I have read many if not all of your post today. I agree with some thing that have been said and disagree with others. Which are which is not important. I would like to say that I don’t really care if the White House hosted an officer who did his job, without regard to the rights of his enemies. He was most likley following orders. As far as any of the other “mass murders” mentioned, the enemy of my enemy is my allie.
I am not a fan of Bush, or any other politician. There is a good chance that any one of them is lying to anyone who will listen at any given time. That is what they do. The nature of the beast if you will.
As for the war in Iraq, Afganistan, and anywhere else it leads; it doesn’t matter if it is legal or not. It was the right thing to do. I would like to know why so many other countries that practice real mass murder to the extent of genocide have been given a pass. It would mean having many wars on many fronts. Still if the UN would get involved and actually do what it should there would be many countries sharing the burden instead of the US and Britain taking nearly all of the monetary and troop cost.
I am sure the popular theory here is : OIL. And I am sure you are correct. However that isn’t the reason we are at war. Though I am sure OIL is the reason they chose this battlefield on this front. I am not concerned about why this war was chosen. Saddam is not in power and that is good. We are still there to insure that he isn’t replaced by someone with the same instability. Not to say that he was inept. He was very good at what he did. What he did however didn’t serve the people he ruled. Some of you are going to say that Bush doesn’t either. Thanks to his policy in the middle east. Thanks to an amendment to our constitution you won’t have to worry about that much longer though I am sure he wouldn’t be re-elected again anyway.
ME
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:02 pm