just want to be abundantly clear there – no room for misinterpretation, intentional or otherwise.

Bart – this tracy person is one i’ve seen around here for a long time. clearly a kid, late middle or maybe high school, who has replaced picking the wings off of bugs with coming here to piss people off as their favorite “weird, sulking loner” pastime. has probably gotten more attention here than anywhere else, ever, so he keeps coming back, even though it’s hostile attention it is preferable to the cold indifference he finds everywhere else in life. we should just let these people know they are in a safe place, and that we are kind people, and that if they’ll open up just a little bit, they may be able to begin to form some real human relationships, the kind that aren’t contingent on impressing a harsh and demanding father, or a distant, emotionally crippled mother, or a ruthless, self-serving superior at work. at first they are recalcitrant, hostile even, but they keep coming around, hoping to make a connection that circumstance hasn’t permitted previously. they’re kind of like stray dogs in that respect – they bark and bare their teeth at first, they’re flighty, easily spooked, but if you don’t kick them, and share a bite of bologna sandwich with them at lunchtime, they eventually start to come around, and get back to being the good kind of creature they were when they were pups. i’m not saying that’ll ever happen in tracy’s case, but there’s a chance, one worth risking a little for.

I was going to intervene with Bart and the Colonel, but your dogged insistence on immaterial points has made me decide to join them in branding you a complete idiot, fixated on starting fights, because your parents chose to saddle you with a girl’s name.

The Taliban was the ruling party in Afganistan. That’s why Bush and a bunch of repubs brought them to Texas and wined and dined them in the 90’s. Condi Rice gave them a nice check for their work irradicating opium fields. What the hell are you even talking about?

Hey, you know what? F*ck you. I’ve got a small business and I can certainly agree with Bart that the last thing you want is conservatives knowing who and where you are. There’s nobody meaner and more vindictive than f*cking conservatives. They get together with their “christian brotherhoods” and “rotary clubs” and decide not to give you business. Sometimes they even vandalize your car. Sometimes, as was the case with DJ Alan Berg, they come to your house and kill you.

So, take your “coward” shit and shove it, dickhead.

15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi.

Wahabism is a Saudi construct, and it is the splinter faction of Islam that makes people terrorists.

OBL took Wahab from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan with him back when we (GHWB and the CIA) were supporting his Jihad against the Soviet Union. Our intelligence agencies have known all about this all along.

The Bush family enjoys a very long term, very intimate, very mutually profitable realtionship with the Saudi royals. They kiss each others faces.

Everything I and the Col. and Bart have had to day on the matter is easily obtainable, verifiable fact.

Nothing you want to pester anyone here about will change that. It will be true tomorrow like it was today like it was on 9/11.

Tracy, you’re beginning to make me very sure I’m correct about your home schooling. Do you even know what “infrastructure” is. Santions didn’t blow up water treatment plants. Santions didn’t destroy the power plant. Santions didn’t put craters in the streets of Bagdad. Santions caused a lot of grief and hardship for Iraqis, but they had very little or nothing to do with the destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure.

OK, so your belief is that if 15 of the 19 terrorists had been Cubans, we WOULDN’T have attacked Cuba….

I’m sorry, Tracy. You’re simply living in a delusional dream world of your own making.

But, you could put an end to some of this bickering by simply saying whether or not you were home-schooled. Were you? Or, are you? My guess is that you are a christian with very christian parents who home schooled you. Am I wrong?

Oh, come off it man. We’ve already killed more Iraqis than Saddam did in his entire career. The British believe we’ve already killed over a million Iraqis. And, Clinton did NOT ruin the country’s infrastructure with surgical cruise missle strikes and anti-aircraft batteries. Bush did that with his “shock and awe.”

Hypothetical question – if 15 of the 19 hijackers had been Cubans, would conservatives have been screaming for an attack on Cuba? You and I both know the answer to that question.

Hey, if after all that’s happened, you still don’t think you were wrong to prefer Bush over Gore or Kerry, good luck in life. You’ll need it.

And, not agreeing with me isn’t what makes people wrong. I don’t think fundamentalist christians, for example, are wrong. I think they’re either insane or hypocritical, which is a different thing.

You have not provided one defensible reason to invade Iraq. A declaration of war (only Congress can do) is the strongest statement Congress can make. It’s a unified front that we will expend any resource necessary to squash any other country that war is declared against. It’s something that Bush didn’t go to congress to ask for. He side stepped that but has continually used (wrongly) the term “war”.

I find your argument (more like lack thereof) weak. Babble about AQ but don’t admit there wasn’t any in Iraq prior to this invasion isn’t justification.
Saying they are there now doesn’t absolve this president.

You are following a fool. Which is worse.

AGAIN the definition of traitor:

http://m-w.com/dictionary/traitor

“one who betrays another’s trust OR is false to an obligation or duty”

We all trusted Petraeus to give a fair and accurate assessment of the situation in Iraq….you guys think that he isn’t.

Comment by Tracy1
___________________

Tracy 1, your own post at #139 provided the definition of treason and suggested it meant the same as “betrayal”. A word in the dictionary such as “treason” can apply to virtually any context. It can apply to an act in a foreign country, to an act described in a work of science fiction or in an historical novel describing an act in the past. To claim that Move On accused Petraeus of “treason” when they called him Betrayus brings this matter to the context of present-day law in the United States. In that event, treason becomes a legal term of art and its definition is found in the U.S. Constitution. Nothing in the legal definition of the act of treason was suggested by Move On in its ad.

Regarding the fact a traitor commits a type of betrayal is meaningless. Not every betrayal is the act of a traitor. Men cheat on their wives and betray them. Whistleblowers squeal on their employers and betray them. Stool pigeons betray their gang. They are not traitors to their country. You’re going about this backwards, looking for a definition (traitor) that includes a type of betrayal. The very dictionary definition you provided for “betray” stated as its number one meaning (the number one position in the definition indicating its widest use) was “to lead astray”. If you are saying that Move On accused Petraeus of being a traitor to his country, you have no proof and in fact nothing in the ad suggests that. The dictionary definition you provided, in fact, (to lead astray) entirely supported Move On’s message that Petraeus was “cooking the books”. To ascribe anything more is to magically intuit what you think was meant by “betray us” and completely ignoring the context.