Bush: ‘never really thought about’ war.
By on Oct 5th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Bush: ‘never really thought about’ war.
In an interview with Al Arabiya television, President Bush said, “When I campaigned for office, I never really thought about the decision to put men and women in harm’s way. I never thought that that would happen.” “But the war in Iraq is necessary,” he added. A reporter asked if “emotional moments” with relatives and friends of soldiers killed in Iraq would make him “reconsider or rethink” the war. “Not really,” Bush responded.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
“ ‘Not really,’ Bush responded.”
Not really–the story of that fool’s life. G.W. Bush—not really!
October 5th, 2007 at 7:29 pmYeah, but he thought a lot about putting bees in a jar and shaking it, and sticking firecrackers up frog asses.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:30 pmAs usual, Bush is fighting the facts and hoping that public stupidity will not notice. He knew from the very start that he was expected to approve a war on Iraq; oil interests demanded it! Cheney knew that when he met them secretly in his office. All that Bush43 has done is provide the excuses for the American people to swallow. At least those gullible and ignorant enough not to know the difference between a Shiite and a Suni.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:31 pmI think if we just left it at “I never thought” then it wouldn’t be a lie.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:33 pmBush never really thought about the 150 people he signed death warrants for either.
He had his hand-picked lackey Al Gonzales write a one page summary and then signed off and ate baloney and laugh and laughed spitting food all over those around him.
Caligula is a charmer next to this sanctimonious tyrant.
-GSD
October 5th, 2007 at 7:34 pmWhat a subhuman, soulless piece of filth that man is.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:37 pmTrivia question: What was the reason for the Iraq invasion in 2003? By that I mean, what reason was given for the actual commitment of troops? If you remember, Bush claimed that Hussein still could avoid war in January, but then the bulk of troops were deployed in February, and the actual invasion occurred in March, after Bush ordered the UN weapons inspectors to leave for their own safety. What triggered the invasion?
October 5th, 2007 at 7:37 pmImpeach Cheney and then GW Botch!!
This sh!t must end!!
October 5th, 2007 at 7:38 pmNow on the day Bush took office all the documents show the interest in Iraq and how weak Saddam was.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:40 pmBush should check with Cheney before he lies the next
time. Cheney made it clear he wanted Saddam removed but didn’t know how to do it. This was long
before 9/11. Americans should try reading the Commission Report with the testimony about when
the Bush Administration started talking about taking
control of Iraq. Now the lies will be believed by those
who didn’t read or watch the hearings but the world
paid attention. If nothing else remember the last
Cabinet meeting before Bush went on one of his many vacations. Connie read the title of the Memo
Bin Laden wants to attack the US with airplanes.
After that meeting it was vacation time and more thought about invading Iraq. None of the 9/11
terrorist were from Iraq. But after 9/11 Bush/Cheney
went after Saddam while letting Bin Laden go free.
Why because they knew Americans would believe what ever the President said even a lie and they were right.
#4, my thoughts exactly!
Although when he said “not really” I believe him.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:41 pmI don’t think he spends a second of his ‘thinking time’ thinking about anyone but ‘his people’ (rich, white, contributors, and co-conspirators).
Democrats have to somehow be able to comprehend that this president simply does not care what happens to those troops. If more of them return to this country disfigured and dismembered,severely burned, blinded, brain damaged, paralyzed, suffering from PTSD, then perhaps these clueless Democrats [and Republicans] will finally realize that Bush and Cheney, in contrast to the toll that Vietnam had on LBJ, will lose no sleep over the misery and suffering that they have caused to so many Americans and the million Iraqis who have been killed by this imperialistic war. What will it take for the alleged peace party to finally decide that this administration needs to be impeached for their crimes?
October 5th, 2007 at 7:43 pmBush once again confirms his narcissistic sociopathology to the world.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:43 pmWhat will it take for the alleged peace party to finally decide that this administration needs to be impeached for their crimes?
Comment by Erroll — October 5, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
A Different Speaker of the House.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:44 pmCaligula is a charmer next to this sanctimonious tyrant.
-GSD
Comment by GSD — October 5, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
I agree; at least, Caligula had the g(b)alls to name his HORSE a “Senator”. Note: any reference to the present Democratic Senate is in(un)intended.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:44 pmTo “reconsider” or “rethink,” one must first “consider” or “think.” I don’t believe that Shrub has the capacity nor the inclination to do either.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:45 pmWhat triggered the invasion?
Bush’s poll numbers fell to 50%. That’s what triggered the invasion. Goerge W. Bush thought it would give him a quick boost in the polls, as the invasion of Afghanistan did.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:47 pmFor once, the Clown is saying something truthful when he responded “not really.” All Georgie wants to do is brush the shrubs at his ranch, play with Barney, and leave all of the decision making to his boss, President Cheney. The 42% of his vacationing in his first 8 months in office in his first term is proof.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:47 pmTo “reconsider†or “rethink,†one must first “consider†or “think.†I don’t believe that Shrub has the capacity nor the inclination to do either.
Comment by Red Pill — October 5, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
Actually he would actually have to give a sh*t first.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:47 pmCaligula had the g(b)alls to name his HORSE a “Senatorâ€.
Well, Bush appointed an ass to head the Department of Justice. So I would say they’re equivalent.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:48 pmBull Sh!t, many have came out and told how GW666 wanted to go to war with Iraq before the criminal was even elected.
“emotional moments†with relatives and friends of soldiers killed in Iraq would make him “reconsider or rethink†the war. “Not really,â€
And this is what you think if you are an arrangant, heartless, spoiled, sociopath. Kind of like his loving to blowup frogs with firecrackers as a kid, cruel and sick.
Buck Fush
October 5th, 2007 at 7:52 pmWhat will it take for the alleged peace party to finally decide that this administration needs to be impeached for their crimes?
What it will take, in case you don’t know, is 17 GOP Senators who will also vote to convict. Stop dumping on Pelosi, you idiots, and apply pressure on vulnerable GOP Senators. Remember, it wasn’t the dems who made Nixon walk the plank. It was the GOP members of Congress, desperate to save their sorry asses.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:53 pmThat’s what triggered the invasion. Goerge W. Bush thought it would give him a quick boost in the polls, as the invasion of Afghanistan did.
Comment by koko the talking gorilla — October 5, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
Koko: you’re understimating, in my opinion, the underlying reason of American foreign policy ie, control of world resources for the benefit of corporations. Whether that’s bad or good, it is up to you to decide but, polls aside, don’t drink the Koo-aid; it’s bad for you!
October 5th, 2007 at 7:55 pmI’m sure his answer gave great comfort to the family and friends of our dead soldiers…whom he used as toys in his “Start A Phony War” board game.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:57 pmA reporter asked if “emotional moments†with relatives and friends of soldiers killed in Iraq would make him “reconsider or rethink†the war. “Not really,†Bush responded. 7:15 pm
Bush is not capable of regret; it’s his nature as a priviledged child of wealth. Does he know what he has caused and is he sorry for the thousands of victims as a result of his policies? I don’t think he even cares!
October 5th, 2007 at 8:06 pmWhat triggered the invasion?
Bush’s poll numbers fell to 50%. That’s what triggered the invasion. Goerge W. Bush thought it would give him a quick boost in the polls, as the invasion of Afghanistan did.
Comment by koko the talking gorilla — October 5, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
#
I meant, what reason did Bush give? What reason was reported in the MSM at the time?
October 5th, 2007 at 8:15 pm#7 it was the nonexistant WMDs.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:19 pm“We know exactly where they are. Their north, south, east and west.” Donald Rumsfeld.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:20 pmthey’re, that is.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:20 pmComment by republicans are the Fear and Smear Party — October 5, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
#
Bingo. Check out the links I gave in #25. What excuse is he using to invade Iran?
October 5th, 2007 at 8:21 pmKoko’s other (#16) comment aside, #21 hit the nail on the head.
I’ve been saying this for a long time, although I’m also very disappointed in the Democratic “leaders”. Speaker Pelosi comes across as weak (visually and substantively) and hasn’t done anything that I’ve seen lately to change that.
But again, the ones with the most blood on their hands are the Republicans who are still voting with Bush.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:22 pm#27, I still laugh my butt off when I think about that line, then almost cry when I think that the Secretary of Defense actually said it.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:27 pmAdministration sources said the decision to strike came after a nearly four-hour meeting in the Oval Office in which CIA Director George Tenet and Pentagon officials told Bush they could lose the “target of opportunity” if they didn’t act quickly.
The target of opportunity was Hans Blix finding NO WMDs.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:27 pmNo WMDs = No Imminent Threat to America
He’ll use the same excuse and add “nucular weapons.” The majority of Americans will believe him because they’re afraid not to followed by more death and destruction.
Before that happens hopefully a coalition of forces will band together to take him out. 49% of Americans will help.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:29 pmWhat triggered the invasion?
Comment by Chris L
Nothing triggered it. It was all carefully planned and executed from the get go. When Chaney had his infamous “energy meeting” that has to remain secret for national security reasons, they planned invading Iraq and Bush simply implemented the plan once it was in place.
They did a pretty darn good job of planning and implementing the invasion. It’s really too bad that they didn’t do any planning on what they would do after the bombs stopped falling.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:30 pmWell, I think George did think of war in Iraq before he sent troops in for several reasons.
First he said Gore would use troops for nation building and he wouldn’t [but now is] during his campaigns. Also Jeb Bush was on board with PNAC for regime change in Iraq not to mention the first Gulf war conflict under his fathers presidency.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:30 pm“We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.” GW Bush, March 2003
October 5th, 2007 at 8:32 pmA Different Speaker of the House.
Comment by Wayne
And a different Senate Majority Leader. It’s really too bad that we have no say over who holds those posts. If we did, both Pelosi and Reid would have been kicked to the curb long ago.
I write Pelosi and Reid an e-mail every morning before I start reading blogs. I really wish more people would do that. If they heard from enough people, perhaps it may get through to them that they are letting this country down.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:33 pmBush said he was against nation-bulding, and he meant it.
Nation-destroying, that’s his specialty.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:33 pmIf you really can’t get up much enthusiasm for our batch of Presidential nominees, go here:
http://www.draftgore.com
Maybe if enough of us let Al Gore know how much this country needs him, he will run. I truly believe if he entered the race today, he would wipe Hillary off the map.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:34 pmWe have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.†GW Bush, March 2003
Iraq was NOt a threat….and its own people turned out to be at least three peoples who hate one another.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:35 pm“We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.†GW Bush, March 2003
Comment by Chris L
So, what’s your point Chris?
October 5th, 2007 at 8:36 pmThat’s not what Bush’s biographer said, and I beleive every word Bush’s biographer said, because he was more dead on than Nastradamus ever was. Everything that Bush’s biographer said has come true:
Two years before 9/11, candidate Bush was already talking privately about attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer
Houston: Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.
“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,†said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.â€
Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father’s shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. “Suddenly, he’s at 91 percent in the polls, and he’d barely crawled out of the bunker.â€
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm
October 5th, 2007 at 8:37 pmWe have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
Of all the lies George Bush has told, this one is the biggest.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:39 pm‘Bush the Destroyer’, is that how he’ll be remembered?
The balanced budget, the Middle East, the US dollar, poor families, the reputation of the US abroad, and others too numerous to mention.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:43 pmSo, what’s your point Chris?
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 5, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
#
See my links at #25. I’m just seeing history repeat itself. I served in Iraq, and still have friends there. Speaking from experience, the best thing we could do for Iraq is leave. Now Bush is pushing for war with Iran. He is using the exact same excuses. Read my links at #25, and compare them to recent news stories and White House speeches about Iran. It’s deja vu all over again.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:46 pmChris L, you gotta think like a Roman emperor. There was ambition for resources for quite some time that I know of, since 1975, caused by the gas crisis.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:49 pmSee my links at #25. I’m just seeing history repeat itself -Chris L.
It has repeated itself many more times than that, starting with the Persian empire.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:53 pmbilbobaggins: It’s really too bad that we have no say over who holds those posts. If we did, both Pelosi and Reid would have been kicked to the curb long ago.
With all due respect, mr. baggins, it’s not clear to me what you expect them to do. Why impeach if you can’t convict? It will also take 17 GOP Senators to acheive impeachment, and I don’t see that happening, sadly.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:53 pmWe can only hope that a coalition of forces (better than the one Rummy put together) will unite and invade America to take Bush out…in other words, “to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.”
October 5th, 2007 at 9:10 pmBush is once again lying. Even before he took office he had expressed an interest in getting rid of Saddam. With 9-11 he took the opportunity to sell the country a war we didn’t need.
Comment by Probus — October 5, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
So did Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and a whole lot of other Democrats (in 1998).
Based on their recent words, it seems that they wanted the credit for themselves, and not have someone else do it for them.
BTW, I also heard they wanted to get rid of a bunch of cruise missiles because of the Y2K bug. That’s why they bombed those unoccupied factories.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:22 pmThere was an elegant way to answer that question, but a sociopath cannot empathize or feel regret. “not really” – “no big deal, so what, who cares, tough noogies. Even President Johnson agonized over Vietnam, and not just over policy. He understood the enormity of the loss of life and knew his responsibility for it. It ate at him and destroyed him.
Not Bush though. He’ll just go right along deciderin’, whistlin’ a happy tune. It’s good to be king.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:28 pmBTW, I also heard they wanted to get rid of a bunch of cruise missiles because of the Y2K bug. That’s why they bombed those unoccupied factories.
Comment by richg — October 5, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
hoo eee!
that’s funny…
sounds like someone’s been playing “telephone”…
jeez… what’ll they come up with next…
October 5th, 2007 at 9:38 pm.
“We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.”
Of all the lies George Bush has told, this one is the biggest.
Comment by bilbobaggins
Exactly correct. Let’s talk about those corporate meetings to divide up the spoils. Let’s talk about Erik Prince and his daddy and all of their greedy friends who have made billions off this war. Many billioins not accounted for. I am only glad I don’t have children who will be paying for this debacle.
I am more worried that the next president will be Hillary–all rah, rah, and no brains. Today I heard someone say how brilliant she is. Would that be brilliant in an “all that glitters like gold” sense? Vote for policies and not for image. Most Americans are too stupid and uninformed to know the difference. Unfortunately.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:41 pmThese are the ramblings of a true sociopath.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:42 pmClearly, he was hell bent on avenging his father’s presidential disaster so for him to make these comments is just another episode of what a pathological liar this man truly is.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:43 pmBush, you WILL burn in hell (if hell exists) for being a murderer.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:48 pmBecause impeachment is done in the House. The trial of the president takes place in the Senate. The republicans impeached Clinton over a sex scandal even though they knew they couldn’t convict him in the Senate.
Remember 1998? How after the House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment, Bill Clinton’s approval rating jumped 10 points? How public approval of Congress fell by more than 10 points?
October 5th, 2007 at 9:50 pmquestioneverything: I believe that Hillary’s “success” is a result of Repuglican campaigning for her. They realize that should Hillary become Democratic Nominee Hillary, they will pull out her skeletons and make swiftboating look like child’s play. She’s got so much hidden dirt that it won’t be very difficult a task. From whitewater to Foster, they will have a heyday.
When you hear card-carrying Repukes promoting Hillary, you have to know they’re up to something. Isn’t it highly unusual that this group of pigs have been so silent about scandalizing Hillary?? Do a gut check and see if this doesn’t smell fishy.
I fear Hillary because, as a woman myself, her demure acceptance of Bill’s affair, was strictly done for “appearance purposes”. She had to be dying inside but flipped into “survivor mode” and presented a very different affect. People praised her for it but it’s the same “disconnect” we see in Bush which is why she is labeled as “Bush Lite”. A dyed-in-the-wool Republican who worked arduously for Eisenhower’s campaign in her youth, she still hasn’t totally shed her rightwing residue. She can’t be trusted.
Besides, she voted to enable this war in the first place, has really never taken full responsibility for her error in judgment in making this vote (while others clearly did like Kucinich and Feingold who had the same intel she had). Also, argument can be made that she, above all the others, should have known better and had more inside info about the entire situation after spending 8 years just prior to this as First Lady. So, in her case, the fact that she erred in judgment is almost twice as bad.
Sure, the Repukes would love for Hillary to become the Candidate because she’ll be an easy target for them to take down – which they will do handily. This is why we need someone whom they cannot swiftboat – lest they look like flaming idiots if they attempt it.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:50 pmThis sociopath continues to lie in the faces of the american people. If this isn’t considered “impeachable” then I don’t know what is!
October 5th, 2007 at 9:52 pm#55-Probus
Well said. I was about to post basically the same thing until I read your comments. Article II Section 4 does not equivocate on this matter, since it states that “The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, SHALL [my emphasis] be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It should be apparent that if the majority party in the House, the Democrats, does not go after this administration, then they are clearly shirking their responsibility of holding those in power responsible for their actions.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:53 pmPsychopaths. Impeach him and Cheney. This Country can’t survive him any longer.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:10 pmGulf 1 we lost like no one.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 5, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
Yes we did.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:31 pmIn Desert Shield/Desert Storm we had 148 battlefield deaths, 145 nonbattlefield deaths
Via Yahoo:
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer 46 minutes ago
WASHINGTON – President Bush defended his administration’s methods of detaining and questioning terrorism suspects on Friday, saying both are successful and lawful.
“When we find somebody who may have information regarding a potential attack on America, you bet we’re going to detain them, and you bet we’re going to question them,” he said during a hastily called Oval Office appearance. “The American people expect us to find out information, actionable intelligence so we can help protect them. That’s our job.”
And probably get them some planes to fly them out of the country.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:34 pmTry around 75,000 between Gulf 1 and Gulf 2 wars.
Comment by RemoveBush
He is probably counting dead Iraqis, including those in bunkers that were buried alive.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:36 pmYou don’t have to do a lot of speculation about why we went into Iraq. Just go to the writings of PNAC and the Pentagon from the 1990’s. They said since we were the world’s lone superpower and the Middle East’s oil and natural gas were so important, we should control the region.
Not only is it down in black and white, but it is the only thing that makes sense. If it were about 9/11, bin Laden, al Qaeda, terrorism, WMD, threats, etc.—then there would be every reason to invade PAKISTAN and none to invade IRAQ.
But Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world (some say largest), and it puts us in between #1 (Saudi Arabia) and #3 (Iran). The Pentagon wanted permanent bases there as part of the “lily pad” strategy.
This White House is made up of people from PNAC and the oil industry.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:38 pmRemoveBush,
Are you saying the deaths are due to vaccinations and depleted uranium?
October 5th, 2007 at 10:42 pmHe is probably counting dead Iraqis, including those in bunkers that were buried alive.
Comment by Juan C. — October 5, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
Maybe “official” count of all.
Weird thing is they don’t count the deaths by SCUDs in the “battle deaths”.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:42 pmAlso the “wounded in action” does not count SCUD wounded and those that got wounded by mines and “friendly fire”.
They always skew the counts.
Source:
http://www1.va.gov/ rac-gwvi/ docs/ GWVIS_May2007.pdf
Comment by RemoveBush — October 5, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
Thanks, hadn’t seen that one.
I was going by
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45404
Like I said, they always skew the counts.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:45 pmThanks for the info RemoveBush, now I’m really pissed at those MFers.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:51 pmBut if you’re trying to say Clinton killed more soldiers than Bush, why not change your handle to “KeepBush�
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 5, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
Clinton was not Prez during GW 1 or 2. Bush sr and W were
October 5th, 2007 at 11:00 pmRemoveBush is NOT a troll.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:00 pmNeither am I or Wayne.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:01 pmDisability Claims amongst Deployed: 407,911
I am one of those 407,911 =P
October 5th, 2007 at 11:02 pmIt sounds like they are not trying to rip you off, at least I hope?
Comment by RemoveBush — October 5, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
I don’t even goto the VA unless I have to now.
Good insurance from work.
They have a tendency to cure hangnails by taking itoff at the knee now days.
And luckily I never had any “Syndrome” symptoms. But 2 buddies died from cancer and a few do have the “Syndrome”
October 5th, 2007 at 11:10 pmBARTLEBEE sez:
From BARTLEBEE’s post # 92:
To whom were you referring, BB?
October 5th, 2007 at 11:11 pmThe real question:
Do you have a conscience??
“Not really.”
October 5th, 2007 at 11:15 pmBartlebee and RemoveBush: Chill, both. What we got here, is a failure of communication.
Bartlebee said: “oh and BTW, Bill Clinton and Al Gore didn’t get 3700 Americans killed fighting their wars. Bush did.”
RemoveBush said: “It is MUCH more than that…..Try around 75,000 between Gulf 1 and Gulf 2 wars.”
RemoveBush’s statement could be understood to mean Clinton and Gore got 75,000 Americans killed in Gulf 1 and Gulf 2. That isn’t what RemoveBush intended to say, but I it could be misunderstood that way, which is what Bartlebee did, I think. So did I, at first.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:15 pmMany, many innocent civilians have already died as a result of Chimpy’s insane occupation of imperialistic expansion…but the 1000-2000 tons of DU we’ve sown the soil with over there is the real killer…in the fullness of time, it will make today’s death & despair look like Mardi Gras.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:15 pmBARTLEBEE sez:
I asked a simple question, BB. Are you sure you want to cop an attitude with me?
October 5th, 2007 at 11:16 pmComment by richg — October 5, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
To which I responded with…..
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 5, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
Ahh…. gotcha
October 5th, 2007 at 11:17 pmI usually just skip richg’s posts, probably what confused me. heh
Can I call for sanity here?
It’s a big misunderstanding, and you’re all talking about the same exact subject -and on the same side of it to boot.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:18 pmWhat is INCORRECT from this data????
Comment by RemoveBush — October 5, 2007 @ 11:18 pm
Bartlebee already answered it.
He thought you were attributing those deaths to Bill Clinton.
That’s why he called them inaccurate.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:19 pmCheck here for information on just what DU is doing to innocent children.
(WARNING! NOT for the faint of heart.)
October 5th, 2007 at 11:21 pmC’mon, people.
Make nice.
It’s all a big misunderstanding.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:22 pmAre you guys drinking tonight or what?
Comment by BARTLEBEE
I wish. Heh.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:23 pmMan, this conversation is hard to follow.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:24 pmBARTLEBEE sez:
Again, BB, all I did was ask a simple question. I didn’t deserve the resultant abuse.
If you want to apologize, I’m listening. If not, “friends” don’t treat each other in such a manner. If that’s how you treat “friends”, you can count me out. I have enough friends.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:24 pmBartlebee’s right: RemoveBush’s figure of 55,999 deaths among the non-deployed refers to members who never deployed to the Gulf War, not to “soldiers that die in action before they can get them into a helicopter or ambulance.” See page 19 of the VA doc RemoveBush cited. There’s nothing in that doc to support RemoveBush’s statement that “Any soldier who is shot but they get into a helicopter before he dies is not counted.”
October 5th, 2007 at 11:31 pmEra = 55,999
What does ERA mean? “ERA identifies service members who did not deploy to the Gulf War.”
October 5th, 2007 at 11:33 pmBB,
I guess it was your nonsense talking to someone one hour and forty minutes after they left, making it sound like you were calling RemoveBush a troll.
Maybe I am still mad about you calling me a rightwing troll with a thick skull over and over and over again that night. You know, the night I had the audacity to question Greenspan’s progressive credentials. At the same time, it is perfectly all right for you to call for Pelosi and Reid to be tarred, feathered, impeached, and drawn and quartered.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:35 pmDid you think? “Not really”
Thousands dead and counting, “Not really,” really? Attend thousands of funerals. Stand in graveyards that are overflowing with the production of your failure to think. You probably intend to be buried in Arlington Cemetery with your breterhen soldiers —- execpt you you were not among them and they will roll in their graves . . . . all tha action in Arlington could cause an earth quake.
Idiot. you forgot to “think.” You are incapable of thought or of human compassion. You are the bain of America.
Diabold? Spin this.
Idiot.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:36 pmBB,
It’s over 3800, Einstein!!!
October 5th, 2007 at 11:37 pmBARTLEBEE sez:
I didn’t “jump on with the pack”, you jackass. I was asking for a clarification, so you could defend yourself. I was trying to help, you fsckwit.
You’re not nearly as smart as you think you are. If you were, you would have seen that I was trying to help you out. You would have corrected the “troll” issue without all this unnecessary rancor. And you would have noticed that RemoveBush’s comments weren’t attributing all those deaths to Clinton, obviating the need for this entire little pissing match of yours.
You admonished me repeatedly to “read”. Perhaps you should have followed your own advice…but then again, then you’d have nothing to be all ‘outraged’ about, would you?
(I tried to tell you it would be a bad idea to cop an attitude with me, BB…)
October 5th, 2007 at 11:38 pmRemoveBush, give it up. You are wrong. Read page 19 of the VA doc you cited.
“There’s nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold.”
October 5th, 2007 at 11:39 pm– Daniel Dennett
BB,
Have I ever told you how egotistically repulsive you can get?
October 5th, 2007 at 11:39 pmThe idiot thought this was just going to be another big game he could play. He never took it seriously.
We have an ignoramus in the White House.
How did the decider think he was going to reign? He would just make decisions based upon the little voices in his head and the rumblings in his gut. His thinking was that shallow.
He operates out of base human failings – vengeance, anger, pride, selllfishness, and ignorance – with nary a thought of self-improvement; such a thought would be too foreigh for his pea brain.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:41 pmThe 73,000 figure comes from the fact that the VA is lumping all the veterans together, whether they were deployed or not, and whether they died in combat or not. Even reserves are counted.
In short, 73000 it’s the total number of deaths for all the troops who served:
“Every three months, the DoD sends VBA an updated list identifying all current and prior military service members since the start of the Gulf War on August 2, 1990.”
It’s hard to compare that figure with the roughly 60,000 American casualties of the Vietnam war. It would be like comparing pears and apples.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:43 pmGeez, guys. No overt trolls here, so yer fightin’ wi’t each other?
I have wondered myself for quite some time what the actual death toll from Mr Bush’s Personal Nightmare was. One t’ing I learned de hard way in dis lifetime ’bout liars, mon… once they know they can git away wi’t lyin’ to ya, ya can never believe anyt’ing they tell ya…
Didn’t the Army recently say they had run out of room at one cemetery? That right there should giva ya cause ta think, mon.
Just… shameless…
October 5th, 2007 at 11:43 pmOh lordy…
October 5th, 2007 at 11:44 pmTripMaster Monkey ,
Watch out, you got in The Great One’s way. It threw me, too, because he was talking to richg one hour and forty minutes after he left—making it look like he was calling RemoveBush a troll.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:44 pmBut regardless of the actual figures, even if only one servicemember had died during this invasion and occupation, that would be one too many.
Can we get back on topic, please?
October 5th, 2007 at 11:44 pmI have not researched that…
You didn’t “research” (i.e., read) a document you cited yourself as proof of 55,999 uncounted dead US GIs in the Gulf Wars, but which upon reading definitions actually refers to ordinary human mortality among ex-GIs who never served in the Gulf?
Then STFU.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:45 pmHey Zooey,
It’s getting ugly in here.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:45 pmum, bad weed, guys?
October 5th, 2007 at 11:47 pmI see that, Keith. I probably won’t hang around.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:48 pmWhat is it that YOU see differently????
Comment by RemoveBush — October 5, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
What I see different is that I don’t care how many died.
As I said before, even one is one too many in my opinion.
This is a war that was started on lies, distortion, fear, and misrepresentation. Even one death is one too many, don’t you think?
October 5th, 2007 at 11:49 pmWhat is it that YOU see differently???
Well, now that I’ve actually read the report — which you obviously haven’t — I can tell you that the number 35,694 includes all vets who died after their military service ended. In other words, ordinary human mortality, you fool.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:49 pmOr even war related deaths. Most are from DEATH BY NATURAL CAUSES. They are not casualtie figures they are general mortality rates.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 5, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
I agree. I haven’t disputed and am not disputing what you say. What you have just stated is what I was trying to point out. Maybe I chose my words wrong.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:51 pm3700 or 3813, WHATEVER! (your best Valley Girl accent)
Bet the relatives of the 113 would love to see that, BB.
I was real interested in what RemoveBush was saying and was asking if it was supposed to be due to vaccinations or depleted uranium. I forgot this was supposed to be the BartleBee Show.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:52 pmConflict = 13,517
Theater = 4,330
Deployed = 17,847
This is for JUST the Gulf 1 and Gulf 2 wars…….
What is it that YOU see differently????
Comment by RemoveBush — October 5, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
Bein’ de sharp bookiekeeper dat I am, mon, I cain’t help but notice dat
if ya add up de figures for Conflict (13,517) and Theater (4,330), the sum equals the total given for Deployed (17,847). Someone, pls confirm. We call this “doublebookin”, mon…
Sumpin’ would appear ta be offin’ here…
October 5th, 2007 at 11:52 pmBARTLEBEE sez:
I “got in your way”? You must be joking.
You squalled like a spoiled little brat, and you received the spanking you so richly deserved.
Bullsh!t.
I said:
To which you somehow felt it was appropriate to reply:
“Put down the ‘booze’ and read.” And you feel that this is not an insult?
I asked you then if you were sure you wanted to cop an attitude with me. From your subsequent diatribes, it would seem as if you do. That’s fine. As I said earlier, I have enough friends, and no pressing need to keep you on as one of them, if this is how you’re going to behave.
And again, I simply asked you a clarification from you in a non-confrontational manner. I didn’t need to “go back and read”, because, again, I wasn’t asking the question for my benefit…I was asking it for yours. Again, your failure to recognize that illustrates just how stupid you are.
I didn’t say you’d be worried about me…clearly, you’re far too dense to experience advanced states of mind like apprehension or regret.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:53 pmOff topic, but
October 5th, 2007 at 11:54 pmJudge halts Iraq war objector’s court-martial
Watada accused of refusing to be deployed to Iraq, saying war is illegal
at msnbc.com
Up yours, Army.
RUCerious sez:
Seeing as how the “topic” has somehow become BARTLEBEE’s bruised ego, I eagerly welcome any offtopic posts. ^_^
October 5th, 2007 at 11:57 pmIn other words, ordinary human mortality, you fool.
Comment by koko the talking gorilla — October 5, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
But a disability rate of about 35% when we are talking about a very young and very fit population is NOT NORMAL.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:57 pmYou can ONLY die in THEATER or in COMBAT if you are active!!
Jeez, you are as dense as a dittohead! Read the definitions in the report you are citing, dope, instead of making up your own definitions.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:57 pmI can tell you that the number 35,694 includes all vets who died after their military service ended. In other words, ordinary human mortality, you fool.
Comment by koko the talking gorilla — October 5, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
BTW, the number “35,694″ is exactly twice “17,847″. Please check the figures. This is too much to be a coincidence. Sumpin’s off here.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:58 pmBartlbee,
Ohhhh yahea! You and Rush must be buying pain pills from the same meth supplier!
Happy daze.
Last notes from Rush: “Dead people, WMD’s, truth, hipocracy . . . no worries . . . I got deferments for no good reason but f*** those fake soldiers . . . ”
“(reminder to self . . . need VA to pay for new $1,000 chair . . . my back’s a little noodley)”
We got contractors . . . chairs? call Shirley . . .
October 5th, 2007 at 11:58 pm#161 ~ Just seeds and dry leaves, sheeesh.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:58 pmSeeing as how the “topic†has somehow become BARTLEBEE’s bruised ego, I eagerly welcome any offtopic posts. ^_^
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 5, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
I second that emotion.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:58 pmLet it be.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 6, 2007 @ 12:00 am
Wise advice — for everyone.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:03 amNo one’s going to check the numbers?
October 6th, 2007 at 12:04 amI still got hard feelings from the night you called me a thick-skulled right wing troll over and over and over again because I wouldn’t agree with what a great convert to progressivism Greenspan was.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:04 amBTW, the number “35,694″ is exactly twice “17,847″. Please check the figures.
You are correct. The numbers are
Veteran Deaths:
Deployed: 17,847
ERA: 55,999
Total: 73,846
Page 8 of VA doc cited above.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:04 amBARTLEBEE
MY BACK’S ALL NOODLEE . . .
October 6th, 2007 at 12:06 amWhat the hell do I have to do? . . . call Blackwater . . . tip-tap on Sen. Craig’s shoe . . . call Dolittle . . . . Rove . . . or call you?
I want a no-bid chair! Chop-chop.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:09 amyou called me a thick-skulled right wing troll over and over and over again because I wouldn’t agree with what a great convert to progressivism Greenspan was.
Comment by Keith — October 6, 2007 @ 12:04 am
And Bartlebee, you said you were “elated” that this pissed me off and that was exactly what you wanted.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:10 amRemoveBush,
Diapers and people like BartleBee are much alike. They need to be changed often and for the same reason.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:13 amThese are benefits claims processed which have nothing to do with actual body counts.
Bartlebee is 100% correct on this, as anyone who reads the report will find.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:13 amConflict = 13,517
Theater = 4,330
Deployed = 17,847
This is for JUST the Gulf 1 and Gulf 2 wars…….
What is it that YOU see differently????
Comment by RemoveBush — October 5, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
Perhaps what these figures really mean is that 13,517 have actually died in combat, and another 4,330 have died from accidents and friendly fire (still a ghastly set of numbers).
13,517 is roughly 4 times what BushCo cares to admit to, if that is what that figure represents.
I Googled ERA and military deaths and got nothing. The 59k number baffles me. Don’t get it.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:13 amBARTLEBEE sez:
BULLSH!T. Your intent in that post was clear as day, you liar. If you wanna insult me, fine. I’ve received worse, from far better than you. But at least have the integrity to stand behind your words.
Go fsck yourself. If you’re stupid enough to lump in my honest attempt to give you a chance to resolve the situation as “piling on”, you really aren’t qualified to post here. It’s truly a pity that you viewed my REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION as a “distraction”…apparently, you can’t post and chew gum at the same time. I hope to God you don’t have a driver’s license…
Wayne was trying to defuse the situation (a noble effort, which I see, has completely failed to stop you from beating your breast).
“Lazy”, was it? I had no idea it was my responsibility to clarify you ambiguous, nonsensical posts.
Jaclass.
So, you can’t defend yourself? Because that’ clearly what you’re saying here.
I gave you a clear opportunity to clarify your ambiguous and LAZY post. Apparently, that’s not good enough for you, though. The only “help” you’ll count as such is people rushing unquestioningly to your defense. How utterly childish.
OH, so now you want to “bury the hatchet”, huh?
Fsck off, jackass. There will be “no hard feelings” when you tender your apology for your unwarranted and unsolicited insults, not before.
I rarely let trolls be. And right now, BB, you’re fitting the definition perfectly.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:17 amI Googled ERA and military deaths and got nothing. The 59k number baffles me. Don’t get it.
RoS, with all due respect, instead of Googling it, why not just read the Definitions section of the report? Page 19: “ERA identifies service members who did not deploy to the Gulf War.†Jee-zus!
October 6th, 2007 at 12:19 amOk, this is ridiculous.
Bye, all.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:21 amZooey sez:
With all due respect, Zooey, I don’t think so.
All I did is ask BB for a simple clarification, and for that, he’s seen fit to include me in his ever-growing list of “enemies”.
I offered him more than one chance to back off, but he felt it would be more fun to continue insulting me.
So, if he insists on counting me amongst his enemies, I’ll behave appropriately. And I won’t lose a minute of sleep over it.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:23 amBARTLEBEE sez:
Scintillating. I’ll take that as the admission of defeat and guilt that it obviously is.
The offer of “burying the hatchet” (with a suitably sincere apology, of course) is still on the table, though…if you’re man enough to take advantage of it, that is…
October 6th, 2007 at 12:25 amSo, if he insists on counting me amongst his enemies, I’ll behave appropriately. And I won’t lose a minute of sleep over it.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 6, 2007 @ 12:23 am
I would rather not see us feeding on our own, and I include Bart in that statement. From what I can see of this argument, it could have been resolved long ago, with some cooperation and clarification, but some people would rather be right than try and help others understand.
That’s why it’s ridiculous.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:28 am60. oh and BTW, Bill Clinton and Al Gore didn’t get 3700 Americans killed fighting their wars.
Bush did.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 5, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
I thought this was one of the best comments on the blog. It’s hard to believe that it touched off World War III. I’m pretty sure that we’re really all on the same team. We need to save our energy to fight the real enemy.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:29 amBARTLEBEE sez:
“Dickmaster Monkey”, huh? You must have spent all recess coming up with that zinger…
No, JACKASS, what I did was allow you the opportunity to resolve the situation yourself. Obviously, I initially gave you far too much credit.
No, you didn’t. You admonished me to ‘put down the booze’ and read. AGAIN, immaterial, since the question I asked wasn’t for my benefit…it was for YOURS.
But you still can’t comprehend that, can you?
When you need a moron’s help, it would be far faster and easier for you to simply look into a mirror.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:31 amBush was ready to go to war with Iraq in 1994 when Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors. He was just waiting for the Clintons to leave the white house. The military was going nuts when Bill Clinton didn’t follow protocal and invade Iraq after the inspectors were removed. All the Republicans were ready to invade right then just like they wanted to get Bin Laden. Thank God Bill was in office. Who knows what kind of shit would have happened if he would of pissed off Bin Laden back then.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:31 amI just went and looked at the actual Govt report these numbers come from. Even looking at it, I’m still confused, but here goes.
Veteran Deaths
Conflict = 13,517
Theater = 4,330
Deployed = 17,847
Era = 55,999
Total = 73,846
Comment by RemoveBush — October 5, 2007 @ 11:30 pm
It appears the 17K figure represents deaths from combat and other causes for DEPLOYED troops.
That’s the combination of Conflict and Theater.
The report defines Era as “running from 1990 to present”.
The report does seem to say an additional 59,999 have died since 1990, but it doesn’t say where this figure comes from, or if it did, I didn’t read far enuff. It is a truly tedious report to read.
IF that Era = 59K figure does represent other deaths, does it include heart attacks, car crashes, cancer, suicides??? I can’t figure it out.
The report does seem to say that the 17K dead are a result of being in combat or being deployed in a combat zone.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:32 amLooks like another one of them thar persnickety threads un huh un huh
October 6th, 2007 at 12:33 amBARTLEBEE sez:
My insults only started after my repeated attempts to let you resolve the situation peacefully fell on deaf ears.
Don’t squeal at me about “insults”, dolt. You have only yourself to blame.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:34 amRecall: This Post is about “bush never really thought about war.”
Just a suggestion . . . but forget about Bartlebee and focus on the topic.
This is the same shiney penny defense that the Administration has been putting out for weeks. . . . refocus attention on whether Obama wears a flag pen, whether Obama is black enough, whether it was wrong for the paper to say “Betray-us,” as the Administration continues to operate ssecret prisions that practice terorism, whether we support a strike against Iran, whether the Administration supports racism in the United States, whether cronyism is so rampant in the Administration that no a single department of government is not compromised including those overseeing food & drug, oil & gas, labor & employment, the environment, and all the rest, including your civil right not to be tazered. Get over it! Look away from the penny! Kids need health insurance, their parents need jobs . . . Raise your heads and your awareness . . . there is no such thing as a “war against terror”, it’s a shinny penny penny. Of course we need national security, we just don’t need national jehad as an excuse for destruction of the Constitution and blindness to the true problems that face this country.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:35 amWell I tried Zooey. Sarcastic? Yes. Wrong? No.
In fact, I said nothing to deserve to be attacked like that.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 6, 2007 @ 12:34 am
But you certainly have done your part to exacerbate the problem.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:36 amZooey sez:
Based upon his singularly rude conduct this evening, I do not.
That was exactly my point. I was attempting to give him a chance to resolve this rationally before it spiraled into the sh!tstorm we have now, but it’s obvious that BB is more interested in beating his breast and howling about how he’s been “wronged” than he is about rational discussion.
In that, Zooey, we are in total agreement.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:38 amThe report does seem to say that the 17K dead are a result of being in combat or being deployed in a combat zone.
Not quite, it says that of those who were deployed in combat, 17K are dead today, from all causes, during or after their military service.
IF that Era = 59K figure does represent other deaths, does it include heart attacks, car crashes, cancer, suicides???
Yes, like the number above, it includes deaths from all causes, during and aftermilitary service.
These are VA stats, not battlefield stats.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:38 amWhat does ERA mean? “ERA identifies service members who did not deploy to the Gulf War.â€
Comment by koko the talking gorilla — October 5, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
Sorry Koko… the posting of Era in caps “ERA” made it look like an acronym at first. I did go look at the report. “Era deaths” does indeed represent all other non-deployed deaths, does it not?
Doesn’t seem to make sense to claim these 59k were also attributable to the Gulf Wars, from the definitions I’m seeing.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:38 amHe doesn’t think about the war NOW. This idiot can’t put a sentance together and he lives with a school teacher. He thinks he understands war though ’cause this Connecticut native got him a western hat, some agitator boots and cuts brush like cattle ropin’ homeboy from Waco. This…is where our country IS.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:39 amIf we had lost 17,000 dead in the first gulf war, don’t you think we’d have heard about it by now?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 6, 2007 @ 12:37 am
It appears to represent BOTH Gulf wars, and not just the first.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:40 amParticularly when I’m RIGHT.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 6, 2007 @ 12:40 am
You may very well be right, but you are also being absolutely vicious. It’s not necessary.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:44 amIt appears to represent BOTH Gulf wars, and not just the first.
Well, yes; but more to the point it includes all Gulf vets who died anywhere at any time after their service, of causes unrelated to their service; not combat deaths.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:45 amOh yea, completely uncalled for.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 6, 2007 @ 12:45 am
You only control yourself, Bart.
I don’t see RemoveBush here.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:47 amBARTLEBEE sez:
Oh yes..you “stood up for yourself” so well against “practically everyone in the room” that you swung indiscriminately on one who was trying to HELP you, and punched him in the back of the head.
And now you’re continuing to swing at the same person who originally wanted to defend you, while simultaneously caterwauling about how he refuses to lie down and take your punches, and instead sends your treacherous ass to the mat.
Yeah, you “don’t back down”, all right. Take solace in that fact while the one who would have defended you pounds you silly. At least you “didn’t back down”.
Idiot.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:47 amBartlebee is obviously talking about combat deaths only while other people were talking about other types of deaths. That apparently started an apples and oranges argument. Maybe I should stay out of it. :o)
October 6th, 2007 at 12:50 amrepublicans are the fear and smear party sez:
That would be advisable…lest BB interprets your input as a “attack” and comes at you in full grade-school mode.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:52 amThats why I wrote repeatedly that “even COMBINING BOTH WARS†you stilll don’t get 73,000 dead combat deaths.
Those are CLAIMS BENEFITS PROCESSING STATISTICS.
Nothing more.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 6, 2007 @ 12:42 am
This is the actual definition of “veterans deaths” from the report.
Veteran Deaths
Identifies deceased veterans reported only in VBA’s Compensation and Pension Master Record (CPMR) and the Beneficiary Identification and Records Locator Subsystem (BIRLS).
The VBA is concerned with HOW MANY CLAIMS BENEFITS IT PROCESSES. Not how many people died in the war.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 6, 2007 @ 12:44 am
Not quite, it says that of those who were deployed in combat, 17K are dead today, from all causes, during or after their military service.
IF that Era = 59K figure does represent other deaths, does it include heart attacks, car crashes, cancer, suicides???
Yes, like the number above, it includes deaths from all causes, during and aftermilitary service.
These are VA stats, not battlefield stats.
Comment by koko the talking gorilla — October 6, 2007 @ 12:38 am
Whoa… what a headache. Whoever claimed we had 73,000 deaths due to the Gulf Wars was wrong, I think. That website, rense.com, that was cited waaay back at the start of all this, appears to be deliberately misleading.
Sorry, but I didn’t start this.
Someone sure managed to cause a ruckus here.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:54 amEnnyhooo, we see how it easy it is for Commander Cod Piece McCokespoon, and others, to manipulate numbers.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:56 amBTW, in my post above, I juxtaposed a comment by Bartles w/ a comment by Koko. Where the line sez, “Not quite…” tht’s not meant as a rebuttal of yer comment, Bart.
i was just trying to compare waht different people had said. Having gone to the original report and looked closely at the definitions, I now think you were right all along, Bart. The number of deaths is based on claims.
Somebody misrepesented something here.
What did M Twain once say? There are 3 kinds of lies…
Lies…
Damned lies…
And STATISTICS…
October 6th, 2007 at 12:58 amwell said, Xisithrus.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:58 amWhoever claimed we had 73,000 deaths due to the Gulf Wars was wrong, I think.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — October 6, 2007 @ 12:54 am
Yep. Those are death claims filed with the VA. They comprise the deaths of the servicemembers who served during the two gulf wars. I think that is where the confusion comes from.
That website, rense.com, that was cited waaay back at the start of all this, appears to be deliberately misleading.
It seems they didn’t quite read the study, although even a cursory reading was enough to understand what the it is about.
I think there is plenty to blame the Bush administration for, without having to take some study and make it into something it isn’t.
October 6th, 2007 at 1:01 amyou called me a thick-skulled right wing troll over and over and over again because I wouldn’t agree with what a great convert to progressivism Greenspan was.
Comment by Keith — October 6, 2007 @ 12:04 am
And Bartlebee, you said you were “elated†that this pissed me off and that was exactly what you wanted.
Comment by Keith — October 6, 2007 @ 12:10 am
I still have not gotten a response.
October 6th, 2007 at 1:01 amI think there is plenty to blame the Bush administration for, without having to take some study and make it into something it isn’t.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — October 6, 2007 @ 1:01 am
Unfortunately, what that site accomplishes is to make anyone who takes it at face value and trusts its numbers look crazy. Hmmmm…
Yer right, Gregor…
October 6th, 2007 at 1:06 amNecessary is an interesting word. Bush and his wolf pack are as good, probably better, than slick Willy Clinton usin’ words to shadow box or escape responsibility. See, you hear a word and you think you grasp how it’s been used and so you draw a conclusion from the use of that word. Unh unh…what that word looks and sounds like ain’t necessarily what “it” means. A word and thus a sentance and the follow on paragraphs could all look normal but what they are sayin’ is just not your interpretation of “it.” For instance, “we don’t torture.” Now you think Bush is speaking for the entire government including the spooks at the CIA. Nope! He means he and Cheney don’t torture but the rest of ‘em, well…. He says the war in Iraq is necessary and you think necessary like retaliating after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Nope! He means necessary in a whole new way. Maybe oil, strategic positioning, imperial conquest but not necessary in the “normal” understanding of the word. This is the kind of crap we’ve been fed from day one. Double speak some call it. I call it plain lyin’ and the whole bunch of ‘em do it. Their used car salesman delux, cute little Ms. Perino sells for Bush every day…she has honed her skill doin’ the Texas two step or better yet the ol’ shell game. This young lady is so impressed with herself and “her national audience” she doesn’t get that we the people see her magic horseshit shovel and we ain’t buying. Fox is buyin’, Limbaugh the bodacious is buying, the asswhipes in congress are buyin, all of the MSM are buying, but we just don’t need anymore horseshit in our lives. Watch their smoke and mirrors, now ya see ‘em now you don’t jive. They will sell you the Brooklyn bridge and lots of other stuff if you want to buy. Yesterday he was selling no social medicine federalism and he vetoed a bill to help poor kids. The kids lost and Bush…well, he’s the decidoor.
October 6th, 2007 at 1:07 amSo Bartles, the 17K just represents “claims” alone, and not actual deaths? Inspite of my handle, I’m not trying to be obtuse. I just find govermental prose monumentally painful to understand.
BTW, is that is true, it makes that website look even more duplicious.
October 6th, 2007 at 1:08 amBARTLEBEE sez:
Nice try, but no. The comment you’re referencing was directed specifically to me.
Also, I didn’t fly off the handle immediately, instead offering you multiple opportunities to retract your insult. Unfortunately, you seemed to interpret this as a sign of weakness, and responded by slinging more insults.
Now, you try to wriggle out of the whole affair by attempting to claim that your original insult wasn’t directed at me? Not good enough, BB. Not nearly good enough.
Did you notice that my question to you was a simple, non-judgmental request for clarification, which you could have utilized (as it was intended) to clear up the situation before it reached the feces-flinging stage?
Apparently not. Apparently, you were either too stupid to see the distinction, or, since you ?wanted this to turn into a big fat BARTLEBEE pity-party, you chose to ignore the distinction.
Which explanation is true really doesn’t matter, since the level of stupidity required is roughly the same in both instances.
NO, you did NOT try to “make nice”. What you tried to do was wriggle out from under your insulting and offensive behavior WITHOUT making amends.
I’m not the one at fault here, BB. YOU are. The sooner you admit that and apologize for your boorish behavior, the sooner all this unpleasantness can end.
October 6th, 2007 at 1:08 amI’m sorry RoS, but thats not right…
That was my statement, not RoS, and you are correct: the VBA is concerned with Claims Processing Only, their figures are not necessarily based on actual soldiers deaths.
October 6th, 2007 at 1:10 amConflict is for Desert shield Desert Storm [1year] only and they report
http://www1.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/GWVIS_May2007.pdf
Ya really gotta read the PDF to figure out what the hell they are saying.
The Gulf War mortality looks to be about 4500 from 1990-1997
October 6th, 2007 at 1:15 amWow, how about that Manny Ramirez! A three-run homer with two outs in the ninth inning!
October 6th, 2007 at 1:16 am.
.
.
Good night.
Well, since we’re talkin’ military tonight, seems like a good place ta drop..
FUBAR inta da mix!!! :-D!!!
This has got to be one of the strangest threads I’ve come across here yet!
October 6th, 2007 at 1:16 amTrip, Bartlebee did not need help in the form of a bail out. What he needed, but did not ask for, was someone to help him explain to the people who jumped on him what they were not understanding. Then this whole side show took on a life of it’s own in a battle of egos. I don’t think anyone owes anyone an apology. Everyone is equally guilty for escalating this thing.
October 6th, 2007 at 1:18 amThe Gulf War mortality looks to be about 4500 from 1990-1997
Comment by Xisithrus — October 6, 2007 @ 1:15 am
Sorry… having come out of this relatively unscathed, I’m thru w/ statistics for the night…
Oh… look… a puppy!
October 6th, 2007 at 1:21 amComment by The Republic of Stupidity — October 6, 2007
I just got here, unscathed =) and well, over there…… Look a troll!!
October 6th, 2007 at 1:27 amBARTLEBEE sez:
That’s exactly what you’re trying to do. You attacked a fellow poster with absolutely no provocation, continued to attack him while he attempted to resolve the situation peacefully, and then tried to field the mealy-mouthed “no hard feelings” bullsh!t when it became apparent that you had mistakenly thrown down against your better.
I’ve explained numerous times that my request for clarification was designed to help you out of the tight situation your vague and ambiguous reference to “the troll” landed you in. If you’re too stupid to recognize a helping hand when you see it, that’s unfortunate, but your steadfast refusal to acknowledge the offer even when it is spelled out for you indicated you actually enjoy being the victim.
First of all, the saying you are groping for is “I couldn’t care less”. It wouldn’t make too much sense to claim that you could ‘care less’, now would it?
Second, I’m not concerned what you care about. At this point, it’s obvious that you’re either genuinely stupid or deliberately obtuse. Either way, it amounts to the same thing: you’re not worth my time.
Wow…I bet you think that’s clever, don’t you? I haven’t heard such witty repartee since the Midway Elementary School playground.
Goodnight. This thread is no longer worth participating in, thanks to BB.
(BTW, BB, this is your chance to sling all sorts of your infantile bullsh!t my way, since I won’t be here to defend myself. You’ve made it abundantly clear that you’re most comfortable attacking an opponent whose back is to you.
October 6th, 2007 at 1:30 amCaligula had the g(b)alls to name his HORSE a “Senatorâ€.
Well, Bush appointed an ass to head the Department of Justice. So I would say they’re equivalent.
Comment by koko the talking gorilla — October 5, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
Touche!
October 6th, 2007 at 1:40 amAs I said when this all began, these are mostly GENERAL MORTALITY figures, not combat related deaths. And they are related to CLAIMS BENEFITS PROCESSING.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 6, 2007 @ 12:47 am
If you don’t stop pounding on people who are on your same side, I’m going to have to label you paranoic. What is it with you, anyway? Do you always have to be right?
October 6th, 2007 at 1:54 amIs this the same BARTLEBEE who insists that Tony Snow is not sick with cancer? What’s up with that?
∞
October 6th, 2007 at 3:09 amIs this the same BARTLEBEE who insists that Tony Snow is not sick with cancer? What’s up with that?
∞
Comment by alphainfinityomega — October 6, 2007 @ 3:09 am
BARTLEBE is a strange character. He always has a stupenduous comeback for the right wingers but, then again, attacks whomever doesn’t agree with him. I don’t trust him, that’s just my opinion.
October 6th, 2007 at 3:59 amI kept waiting for someone to call for half the folks posting here tonight to be impeached, and then tried, convicted, and hanged at the Hague…
Veeeeery humourous indeed…
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 6, 2007 @ 3:45 am
If you wait long enough, you will see people impeached, convicted and hanged at the Hague. It’s a matter of time, unless they run out to their extensive holdings in Paraguay, making it a bit more difficult to extradite and prosecute. O.Bigfoot, do you care to say who has big holdings in Paraguay? Please do.
October 6th, 2007 at 4:20 amO.Bigfoot has remained silent. Threfore I should assume he has nothing to say like I suspected. He knows who holds extensive interests in Paraguay, why won’t he say it? You tell me!
October 6th, 2007 at 4:42 amI have been, for the last 6 hours, trying to drill into your thick skull one concept and one concept alone.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 17, 2007 @ 12:24 am
I don’t have a thick skull, I extremely understand what you are saying.
Comment by Keith — September 17, 2007 @ 12:27 am
Do you think it helps the progressive cause to say i have a thick skull? Don’t we still have freedom of speech?
Comment by Keith — September 17, 2007 @ 12:28 am
And considering its taken me about 7 hours to convey a single simple concept to you, I’d have to say that qualifies as a fairly dense cranial shell.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 17, 2007 @ 12:31 am
I understood you seven hours ago. It wasn’t that complicated a concept. Just because I didn’t address you, you have a problem? You never addressed me, if you’d like to check.
Comment by Keith — September 17, 2007 @ 12:32 am
perhaps that cranial density is greater than we thought.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 17, 2007 @ 12:34 am
Thanks for confirming my density readings.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 17, 2007 @ 12:40 am
Yeah. You made me angry. Happy?
Comment by Keith — September 17, 2007 @ 12:47 am
Elated.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 17, 2007 @ 12:55 am
But alas poor trolls.
So TOLIVER\AKA\JOECARIBE\AKA\KEITH.
You lose.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 17, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
Of course, guys like you work from passion, not logic. You’re a real political genius.
October 6th, 2007 at 4:50 amComment by BARTLEBEE — September 17, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
Of course, guys like you work from passion, not logic. You’re a real political genius.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 17, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
Comment by Keith — October 6, 2007 @ 4:50 am
I suspect BARTLEBEE thinks he is above us all. How dare he! Why would he think that? It may be conforting to the trolls (O.foot) that we are challengin our own but I cannot remain silent.
October 6th, 2007 at 5:21 amforeyes,
Actually, I’m usually told by people that I am too logical and not passionate enough.
Is it true that Paraguay has no extradition treaties with the US and W just bought a large ranch there?
October 6th, 2007 at 5:37 amOf course, guys like you work from passion, not logic. You’re a real political genius.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — September 17, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
What are you? Some kind of Nazi? Let me know so I can get away from you. I’m weak and wil probably remain weak for the rest of my life. I’m an imperfect human being. What are you looking for, the Aryan race?
October 6th, 2007 at 5:42 amFor one reason or another, somenone wants to tell folks they have a “thick skull”. I wonder if what they mean is that foreign forces don’t have a valid reason for being in their country and shooting their people. How would I react? I, for one, would be killing every foreigner I encountered, right then and there, simple as that! But that’s just me.
October 6th, 2007 at 6:27 amBush isn’t capable of “thinking” about anything which is clear from his extemporaneous answers during any Q & A. What a sad fate for this country when the movers & shakers decided to hack the voting machines and install Bush as the “puppet dictator”.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:13 amKeith: Just google Bush and Paraguay. They purchased thousands of acres sitting on the largest and purest water reserve in the world. Once they suck all the oil off the planet, then they’ll get into the water business. No doubt the entire gang will be in exile there so Chimpy can’t be extradited to face criminal charges. It’s all part of the Bush Crime Family plan.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:15 amWhich is why he has to be impeached before his term ends. Once this occurs he will be stalled from exiting to Paraguay and the international court tribunal will nail his sorry butt for war crimes.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:16 am“Bush: ‘never really thought about’ war”=
That’s a curious statement from one who said “Those m’fkers tried to kill my daddy”.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:48 amBased on liberal blog postings, it seems you’ve given up the hunt for Rush Limbaugh. The “wag the dog” approach by liberals to distract from their admitted retreat from retreat (we shall not remove US troops by 2013) has backfired, and Hill’reh has been fingered as the culprit behind the attack. Eirily remeniscent of when Bubba Clinton fired 100 Tomahawk rockets at Afghanistan while he was being impeached. I guess if it works once, it could work again – I knew Hill’reh was not an original “out of the box” thinker.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:52 am1) The emotional moments with friends and relatives of soldiers doesn’t really affect him – BECAUSE HE DOESN’T HAVE ANY MOMENTS.
2) “You know, when I campaigned here in 2000, I said, I want to be a war President. No President wants to be a war President, but I am one.”—Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26, 2006
http://slate.com/id/76886/
October 6th, 2007 at 8:59 am‘…..Never REALLY thought about war’.
So, If Bush tells us again..’I am not thinking REALLY about war with Iran,we know REALLY what he means”..!!
October 6th, 2007 at 9:13 amThanks for the humour, ya’ all….watching all of you liberals expressing your “compassion†for each other here on this thread really made my day…
They weren’t arguing the merits of compassion, they were arguing Gulf war troop fatalities based on some misinterpretation from a website called Rense.com. People calling each other stupid is a common occurence across the entire human genome. In fact Ann Coulter used it just the other day to describe women voters.
Speaking of “compassion” have you been to a restroom stall lately to get your ‘compassion’?
October 6th, 2007 at 9:18 amYou know, when I campaigned here in 2000, I said, I want to be a war President. No President wants to be a war President, but I am one.â€â€”Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26, 2006
I was looking for this quote last nite [Kudos] because I had heard Bush describe himself as a war president BEFORE 9/11. As well we find him speaking of WMD in his inaugural address. Its safe to say \/\/ knew he stood a very good chance to send troops into a battle, in fact he relished the idea of war according to the quote above.
October 6th, 2007 at 9:22 amChimpy’s continued nihilism is making him a joke in this country and this country a joke interenationally. Bush’s legacy = Dumbing Down of America.
October 6th, 2007 at 9:29 amfinger slip….”internationally”.
October 6th, 2007 at 9:29 amAt the direction of PNAC, Chimpy was the “war president” before he hacked the elections to become president. Thanks for the facts, X!
And we know why….Pure, unadulterated “greed” – Bush’s Blood For Oil War filling his coffers and the coffers of the military war machine. Expending countless lives in the false flag operation on 911 as well as 4,000 dead and thousands maimed, this sociopath would believe this to be a “small price to pay” for the demolition of our democracy and descent into fascism….while at the same time ripping off americans and filling their own family coffers.
October 6th, 2007 at 9:33 amJust read something interesting: Edwards found that Penn who is Hillary’s “karl rove” has ties to Blackwater. I wonder how she’ll try to spin that one??
As Edwards so articulately puts it: Why trade a republican corporate (fascist) group for a democratic (fascist) group?? It would appear that Hillary definitely is “Bush Lite”.
October 6th, 2007 at 9:34 amhttp://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/154/5/399
The 7 year study on Gulf War mortality
[[in ref. to the Rense.com article that ref'd: http://www1.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/GWVIS_May2007.pdf
I think they call that, nihilism, today, a noble lie Veritas. And I agree the dumbing down of Americans has been happening for some time, the Excite! [Neal Bush program] is a fine example of that.
October 6th, 2007 at 9:35 amX: Was it Neal Bush or another Bush who was head of the security company on 911 at the WTC?
October 6th, 2007 at 10:08 amAnd the hits just keep coming:
National Guard Troops Denied Benefits After Longest Deployment Of Iraq War
MINNEAPOLIS, MN (NBC) — When they came home from Iraq, 2,600 members of the Minnesota National Guard had been deployed longer than any other ground combat unit. The tour lasted 22 months and had been extended as part of President Bush’s surge.
1st Lt. Jon Anderson said he never expected to come home to this: A government refusing to pay education benefits he says he should have earned under the GI bill.
“It’s pretty much a slap in the face,” Anderson said. “I think it was a scheme to save money, personally. I think it was a leadership failure by the senior Washington leadership… once again failing the soldiers.”
Anderson’s orders, and the orders of 1,161 other Minnesota guard members, were written for 729 days.
Had they been written for 730 days, just one day more, the soldiers would receive those benefits to pay for school.
“Which would be allowing the soldiers an extra $500 to $800 a month,” Anderson said.
That money would help him pay for his master’s degree in public administration. It would help Anderson’s fellow platoon leader, John Hobot, pay for a degree in law enforcement.
“I would assume, and I would hope, that when I get back from a deployment of 22 months, my senior leadership in Washington, the leadership that extended us in the first place, would take care of us once we got home,” Hobot said.
Both Hobot and Anderson believe the Pentagon deliberately wrote orders for 729 days instead of 730. Now, six of Minnesota’s members of the House of Representatives have asked the Secretary of the Army to look into it — So have Senators Amy Klobuchar and Norm Coleman.
Klobuchar said the GI money “shouldn’t be tied up in red tape,” and Coleman said it’s “simply irresponsible to deny education benefits to those soldiers who just completed the longest tour of duty of any unit in Iraq.”
Anderson said the soldiers he oversaw in his platoon expected that money to be here when they come home.
“I had 23 guys under my command,” Anderson said. “I promised to take care of them. And I’m not going to end taking care of them when this deployment is over, and it’s not over until this is solved.”
The Army did not respond questions Tuesday afternoon.
Senators Klobuchar and Coleman released a joint statement saying the Army secretary, Pete Geren, is looking into this personally, and they say Geren asked a review board to expedite its review so the matter could be solved by next semester.
Minnesota National Guard spokesman Lt. Col. Kevin Olson said the soldiers are “victims of a significant injustice.”
October 6th, 2007 at 10:12 amWriting their orders so as to short them from getting the educational benefits promised.
Yup, those republicans sure love and honor our troops!
October 6th, 2007 at 10:14 amMinnesota National Guard spokesman Lt. Col. Kevin Olson said the soldiers are “victims of a significant injustice.â€
Comment by barfly — October 6, 2007 @ 10:12 am
I once had an employer cut my hrs from full to pt time almost to the DAY would have been eligible for medical benes. All of a sudden, he just didn’t need the help in the office.
I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that these guys had orders for 729 days…
**cough… cough…**
October 6th, 2007 at 10:16 am“I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that these guys had orders for 729 days…”
Gotta make up that missing 7 billion somehow…
October 6th, 2007 at 10:18 ambarfly, you assume a characteristic the Reps don’t have. You see, they support the troops only while in the field. Once they’re home, well, then the Reps are the party of personal responsibility, which is why they essentially tell the returned veterans to suck it.
October 6th, 2007 at 10:19 amAnd it’s probably just the tip of a funding iceberg waiting to surface – after the next election.
October 6th, 2007 at 10:21 amI agree Wilco.
You won’t here Rush discuss this, or Coulter, or Malkin. Their brains aren’t wired for truth-telling.
They’ll ignore it, or smear the soldiers as just being greedy and unpatriotic.
October 6th, 2007 at 10:25 amBTW, if anyone is curious about the Rense article cited above, I’d stay away from it. I was here last night for most of that brouhaha and I’m still not sure what happened, but that Rense article (More US Dead in Middel East Blah Blah Blah…) APPEARS to be quite misleading.
Don’t wanna get into anything w/ anyone this early in the day, but…
Whoever wrote that piece apparently didn’t understand the VBA study they borrowed from, or didn’t care what it really meant.
Just pointin’ it out…
October 6th, 2007 at 10:26 amI’d like to know what part of the “budget” the Blackwaters get paid from.
We keep hearing and hearing about how the military needs more money from Iraq, but somehow, the enormous cost of keeping those “private security contractors” over there never gets discussed.
Which line item in the budget is for “private security”? And how much is it costing? Ooops… my bad… that’s top-top-double-top-secret info.
October 6th, 2007 at 10:29 amI agree Wilco.
Comment by barfly
There really should be more people like you. The world would be a better place.
October 6th, 2007 at 10:31 am“Don’t wanna get into anything w/ anyone this early in the day, but…”
Wow, what a piss fight last night!
So that’s why this place smells like a kennel this morning…
October 6th, 2007 at 10:33 am“There really should be more people like you. The world would be a better place.”
Comment by Wilc
That’s what I keep telling my wife. She fails to see the humor…
October 6th, 2007 at 10:35 amSo that’s why this place smells like a kennel this morning…
Comment by barfly — October 6, 2007 @ 10:33 am
It kinda went on and on… and I’m STILL not sure what actually happened. Jes’ stay away from that Rense article. It’s very misleading, as far as I can tell.
October 6th, 2007 at 10:36 amI just checked out the thread on praying for Bush.
That got at least as bad as this thread. Seems like it was an interesting night (aside from the Indians winning again against the Yankees!)
October 6th, 2007 at 10:39 amOkey-dokey ROS.
October 6th, 2007 at 10:40 amAside? Well, in addtion to the Indians beating the Yanks. Go Tribe!
October 6th, 2007 at 10:41 amVeritas, that was Marvin who had the security firm at the WTC. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen it, but this is my go-to site for all facts related to 9/11: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
It’s a very well sourced time line of everything.
October 6th, 2007 at 10:45 amSeems like it was an interesting night (aside from the Indians winning again against the Yankees!)
Comment by Wilco — October 6, 2007 @ 10:39 am
Over on the Pray For Bush thread, at least they were fighting w/ a real troll. Over here, it was all an “in-house” melee. Everyone got themselves confused. The numbers that were flying around were totally twisted. Bart was right. All the VBA report did was count “claims” and claims alone.
Someone was trying to say 75K had died between Gulf Wars 1&2, which started it all, and cited Rense as proof, and Rense cited the VBA report as proof and then a whole busload of drunken sailors rolled up and someone fired a gun, and the lights went out, and next thing I know, I wake up in an alley in Kansas City…
October 6th, 2007 at 10:46 am“I just checked out the thread on praying for Bush.
That got at least as bad as this thread. Seems like it was an interesting night (aside from the Indians winning again against the Yankees!)”
Comment by Wilco
It’s like walking into a bar after a free-for-all the previous night; with tables overturned, half-smashed mugs and broken pool cues lying on the floor, and the bathroom door hanging akilter by a single hinge.
Did they have to call the cops to finally clear the joint?
October 6th, 2007 at 10:50 amWith a lump on the back of my head the size of a cue ball, I might add…
October 6th, 2007 at 10:52 amAside? Well, in addition to the Indians beating the Yanks. Go Tribe!
Comment by Wilco — October 6, 2007 @ 10:41 am
Indeed. Took extra innings and a truly horrifying number of gnats on the field but it was a happy ending. And the Angels likewise went down to 0-2. Good times, good times.
October 6th, 2007 at 10:52 amnext thing I know, I wake up in an alley in Kansas City…
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
This happens often to me.
October 6th, 2007 at 10:54 amReading this thread really woke me up this morning. It was funny. It was one of the dumbest arguments I’ve seen on here. To get so worked up about something so unimportant is ridiculous. And it’s always great having people critizing other people for calling them names by calling the offending party names…and then demanding an apology.
I hope everyone kisses and makes up, though.
Why impeach if you can’t convict? It will also take 17 GOP Senators to acheive impeachment, and I don’t see that happening, sadly.
Comment by koko the talking gorilla
Ok, here are the reasons:
1) Because it is the right thing to do.
2) Because it will show the world that we care about this country and are not going to sit idly by and let two men destroy it.
3) To show Bush that we are not going to sit idly by and watch him destroy our country.
4) Because once under Articles of Impeachment Bush will no longer be able to use Executive Privilege and tell his minions to ignore subpoenas, so we may be able to get to the bottom of the numerous crimes he has committed.
I truly think, after all of Bush’s crimes are laid bare for the nation to see, that the 17 Republican Senators needed for conviction will realize that if they vote to support this criminal, they will be dealing the final death blow to their political careers. And even if he is not convicted, he will go down in history as a President who broke the law and was impeached, just like Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job.
October 6th, 2007 at 10:55 am“With a lump on the back of my head the size of a cue ball, I might add…”
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
Ahh, memories of a misspent youth…
That happened to me once, as a youngster. We had a party, and I don’t remember much of what went on – but I awoke the next morning with a lump on my noggin, and my kitchen table broken in two.
October 6th, 2007 at 10:57 amComment by bilbobaggins — October 6, 2007 @ 10:55 am
Bilbo! How was the beer last night? I tried to catch up with you on a different thread, to ask which town you were prowling. I thought I might be able to point you to a good bar option.
October 6th, 2007 at 10:57 ama truly horrifying number of gnats
On CNN this morning, someone said that there are a lot of bugs in Cleveland so that was normal. I couldn’t believe it! Utter BS.
October 6th, 2007 at 10:57 amThat happened to me once, as a youngster. We had a party, and I don’t remember much of what went on – but I awoke the next morning with a lump on my noggin, and my kitchen table broken in two.
Comment by barfly — October 6, 2007 @ 10:57 am
Hence the nickname?
When I was young, drinking (etc.) sometimes meant waking up next to a stranger. I think I need to get out more, because that just never happens these days.
October 6th, 2007 at 10:59 amI hope everyone kisses and makes up, though.
Comment by Wilco — October 6, 2007 @ 10:54 am
I wasn’t really doing much of the fighting last night. It is rather funny to go back and read it this am. Has a rather “Three Stooges” quality to it, huh? Oh well, been on both sides of that one, myself.
Just not this time. Boys will be boys…
October 6th, 2007 at 10:59 amRemember 1998? How after the House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment, Bill Clinton’s approval rating jumped 10 points? How public approval of Congress fell by more than 10 points?
Comment by koko the talking gorilla
I suppose your are trying to say that the same would happen here. I highly doubt it. Clinton was a popular president before the Republicans tried to impeach him. Many people felt that impeaching a popular president about lying about a blow job was a stretch. It also came after Ken Starr’s 70 million dollar investigation of everything Bill Clinton had done for the last 30 years and all he could come up with was lying about a BJ.
Clinton’s “crime” pales in comparison to Bush’s multiple crimes. I’m willing to bet the farm that if Congress were to bring Articles of Impeachment against Bush, that Congress’ approval rating would soar.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:01 amThe PNAC group used Bush’s ego and 9/11 as a catalyst to get control of Middle East oil. The agenda was not to catch the 15 Saudi hijackers and 4 others with their leader it was to get into a Middle East country that had oil. Saddam was just an easy target.
Bush used our military for seeking personal vengence, America was sold with lies.
Police work teaches look at who benefits the most after a crime and you find the criminal. The crime 9/11, the criminal, well we all know don’t we ?
October 6th, 2007 at 11:01 ama truly horrifying number of gnats
On CNN this morning, someone said that there are a lot of bugs in Cleveland so that was normal. I couldn’t believe it! Utter BS.
Comment by Wilco — October 6, 2007 @ 10:57 am
That’s what you get for watching CNN. I do remember a Cubs game a few years ago that was plagued like that, but it was a day game and it was definitely not in October (guess that goes without saying). The close-ups last night of the Yankee pitcher’s neck had me scratching and slapping in front of the tv. If I were the Yankees, I’d wonder if his bug spray had been doctored.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:02 amOn CNN this morning, someone said that there are a lot of bugs in Cleveland so that was normal. I couldn’t believe it! Utter BS.
Comment by Wilco — October 6, 2007 @ 10:57 am
Actually, I do remember reports like this in the past – baseball games in Cleveland w/ so many bugs on the field it looks like a snowstorm.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:02 amActually, I do remember reports like this in the past – baseball games in Cleveland w/ so many bugs on the field it looks like a snowstorm.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — October 6, 2007 @ 11:02 am
No, dude, that was this April and it really was a snowstorm!
Heh.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:03 amBilbo! How was the beer last night? I tried to catch up with you on a different thread, to ask which town you were prowling. I thought I might be able to point you to a good bar option.
Comment by gummitch
Corvallis, I went to Murphys. There really aren’t a lot of places here to go have a drink, and I really don’t go to bars to drink. I was meeting friends there for dinner. Unfortunately they didn’t have the beer you recommended, but I did tell the bartender about the Bridgeport IPA you recommended and he’s going to talk to his Bridgeport representative to order some.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:03 amI’m willing to bet the farm that if Congress were to bring Articles of Impeachment against Bush, that Congress’ approval rating would soar.
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 6, 2007 @ 11:01 am
Yeah, I agree. Another little observation here. Some of the trolls (actually all of them) here love pointing out over and over that Bush is “polling” better than Congress these days, in spite of his general unpopularity in some quarters.
What they don’t say is that NO ONE has actually asked anyone, do you like Bush MOE or LESS than Congress. To keep citing 2 different sets of numbers (Bush’s ratings v Congress’ ratings) is meaningless and silly. PROVES NOTHING substantial.
Pres to pres, yes.
Congress to Congress, yes.
Pres to Congress? Doesn’t fly. ANOTHER STRAWMAN!
October 6th, 2007 at 11:07 amCorvallis? No wonder you don’t go out to drink.
You need this page, though.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:07 amNo, dude, that was this April and it really was a snowstorm!
Heh.
Comment by gummitch — October 6, 2007 @ 11:03 am
I recall seeing footage on the news sometime in the late ’80’s of bugs in the old Cleveland Stadium – gazillions of ‘em flying around in a game.
I’m from upstate NY and the mosquitoes are hideous in the summer. When we’d play baseball, one of the better reasons to end the game at night was when we couldn’t take the skeeters anymore.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:11 amPres to Congress? Doesn’t fly. ANOTHER STRAWMAN!
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — October 6, 2007 @ 11:07 am
They also ignore the fact that Congress always polls badly and, while they always say “Democrat led Congress”, the Republican Congress was polling at 23% prior to the 2006 election.
But pointing any of this out to the trolls is like digging in the surf with a fork.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:11 amI’m from upstate NY and the mosquitoes are hideous in the summer. When we’d play baseball, one of the better reasons to end the game at night was when we couldn’t take the skeeters anymore.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — October 6, 2007 @ 11:11 am
I lived up there as a kid. Bit odd to have bugs like that in October, though. Come to think of it, they were reporting during Thursday’s game that it was about 70F there; maybe the bugs hatched out because it was a little warmer than normal?
October 6th, 2007 at 11:13 amRoS, wasn’t there a poll out a few weeks ago in which Congress polled better than Bush on the issues, regarding who people trust to better handle whatever issue?
October 6th, 2007 at 11:13 amBut pointing any of this out to the trolls is like digging in the surf with a fork.
Comment by gummitch — October 6, 2007 @ 11:11 am
Or swat gnats in Cleveland w/ a baseball bat…
October 6th, 2007 at 11:14 amRoS, wasn’t there a poll out a few weeks ago in which Congress polled better than Bush on the issues, regarding who people trust to better handle whatever issue?
Comment by Wilco — October 6, 2007 @ 11:13 am
I vaguely remember something to that effect, but don’t cite me.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:15 amCheck here for information on just what DU is doing to innocent children.
(WARNING! NOT for the faint of heart.)
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 5, 2007 @ 11:21 pm
I’m at a loss for words. Any nation which would do this is not a nation I want to consider myself a member of. Whatever this country might have become is only an echo of an echo of a long-forgotten dream. Two atom bombs dropped on two cities in Japan 60 years ago, and D.U. being used in war zones in at least two recent wars now…what is Evil, if not this?
October 6th, 2007 at 11:16 amgummitch, it was in the high 70s. That’s why the bugs hatched early, yes.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:16 ammaybe the bugs hatched out because it was a little warmer than normal?
Comment by gummitch — October 6, 2007 @ 11:13 am
That’d be my thinking. Being so close to Lake Erie might have something to do w/ it too. The humidity in the Midwest can go off the charts. Ever been in 95 degree heat w/ 95% humidity? Ugh…
Later, guys… gotta go fer some coffee… strong, strong coffee… ‘n have this lump on my head looked at… seems like someone hit me when I was lookin’ the other way last night…
October 6th, 2007 at 11:19 amThey also ignore the fact that Congress always polls badly and, while they always say “Democrat led Congressâ€, the Republican Congress was polling at 23% prior to the 2006 election.
It wouldn’t be so bad if they actually did say the “Democrat led Congress”, but what they say is the “Democrat Congress”, like congress has nothing but Democrats in it, not to mention the insult of misusing “Democrat” when it should be “Democratic”.
The recent Washington Post poll put a lie to their argument, though since the Republicans in Congress polled equal with Bush and the Democrats in Congress polled 8 percentage points higher than Bush and the Republicans.
It must be tough being a Republican these days. Most of the people I know who are still Republicans don’t mention their political affiliation and leave the building the minute people start discussing politics. I don’t know one Republican who is willing to stand up for their party.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:19 amI vaguely remember something to that effect, but don’t cite me.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/01/AR2007100101235.html?hpid=topnews
The poll showed that Americans trust the Democrats more on all issues except for Terror on which they polled equally. That’s the really bad news for the Republicans. The Republicans used to score much higher than the Democrats on Terror and now they are equal!
October 6th, 2007 at 11:23 am‘Times-Pic’ Busts Another ‘Toe-Tapping’ Politician
Shield Law’s Details Raise Concerns — For Journalists
Will Newspapers Ever Pull Out of Steep Ad Slump? Hear All About It in the First ‘E&P’ Audio Report
Columnist Who Charted Young Artist Featured in New Film
AP: Iraqis Say U.S. Targeted Civilians in Air Attack
APME Elects 9 to Board
Man Enters Plea in Death of Wife at Newspaper Office
Wash. High Court: Campaign Lies Are Protected Speech
Cost of Declassifying WWII Records nearly $30M
Idaho Newspaper Editorials Not Kind to Larry Craig
From Raw Story
Wash. High Court: Campaign Lies Are Protected Speech
OLYMPIA, Wash. A sharply divided state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a law which bars political candidates from deliberately making false statements about their opponents violates the First Amendment right of free speech.
In a 5-4 decision, the high court affirmed a state Court of Appeals ruling that overturned the law. The measure was enacted by the Legislature in 1999, a year after a similar ban on false statements involving initiatives and other ballot measures was thrown out by the state Supreme Court.
State Sen. Tim Sheldon, D-Potlatch, invoked the law in 2002 after his Green Party challenger, Marilou Rickert, distributed a flier that asserted Sheldon voted to shut down a state institution in his district. In fact, he voted against a budget that included closure of the Mission Creek youth camp, although critics said he didn’t do enough to support the facility.
He filed a complaint with the state Public Disclosure Commission, which investigated and imposed the maximum fine, $1,000. By then, Sheldon had easily won re-election. The commission action was upheld in Superior Court, but overturned by the appeals bench.
The Supreme Court majority said in Rickert v. State of Washington and PDC that the new law “like its predecessor, is unconstitutional on its face.”
“The notion that the government, rather than the people, may be the final arbiter of truth in political debate is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment,” Justice James Johnson wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Charles Johnson, Richard Sanders and Susan Owens.
“The best remedy for false or unpleasant speech is more speech, not less speech. The importance of this constitutional principle is illustrated by the very real threats to liberty posed by allowing an unelected government censor like the PDC to act as an arbiter of truth.” [. . .]“
What’s wrong with this reasoning? It presupposes that truth and lies get an equal airing in the media, something we know not to be the case. When a media giant like Fox starts spewing it’s smears, few others (with the exception of MSNBC, on occasion) are capable, or willing to do the heavy lifting of debunking their Rightist propaganda.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:29 amOoops!
Sorry for the hasty cut-and-paste.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:32 ambarfly, I agree with the ruling. Lying shouldn’t be criminalized. It’s a free speech issue.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:48 am“Lying shouldn’t be criminalized. It’s a free speech issue.”
Comment by Wilco
The lead judge’s dissent stated his belief that this ruling would give politicians (and others) “a license to lie.”
Why is it okay in the political sphere, but not, say the medical field?
Or the realm of scientific inquiry?
This ruling “poisons the well of democracy,” but it’s a very slow-acting poison. We won’t feel it’s affects much at first, but when we suddenly realize how debased the concept of objective political truth has become, it will be to late to save the patient.
October 6th, 2007 at 11:57 amFirst, a doctor lying endangers life. A politician lying is par for the course.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:01 pmNo one dies.
Second, it’s not the ruling that “poisons the well of democracy,” it’s the lies themselves.
Much as I deplore some of the implications of this ruling, I have to agree with Wilco.
Why is it okay in the political sphere, but not, say the medical field? Or the realm of scientific inquiry?
Because those realms are subject to empirical inquiry; in politics, as in other human affairs, truth is much squishier: we have no laboratory-bound sociospheres on which to run experiments.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:11 pmBy the way, he’s lying:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm
He was thinking about invading Iraq before he was president.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:11 pm“First, a doctor lying endangers life. A politician lying is par for the course.
No one dies.”
I can’t believe you typed that without laughing.
Bush lied – you know the rest.
“Second, it’s not the ruling that “poisons the well of democracy,†it’s the lies themselves.”
And no accountability for telling lies sets the bar so low, there is in effect NO standard. Politicians are public figures, and cannot prove libel or slander without expending considerably more effort and resources than common citizens would require to defend themselves from similar charges. This ruling (if upheld by the Supreme Court) would make it all but impossible to prove one’s case. It’s not a slippery-slope argument I make – it’s a “greased skid” one, that frees pols to say whatever they think they can get away with, as long as the “news” orgs don’t pay attention.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:20 pmBecause those realms are subject to empirical inquiry; in politics, as in other human affairs, truth is much squishier: we have no laboratory-bound sociospheres on which to run experiments.
Comment by koko the talking gorilla —
This presupposes a world in which republican-friendly corporate media does not exist. Your assertions might be valid in a classroom – but they fall horribly short in real-world politics.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:24 pmComment by koko the talking gorilla
I’m probably the only one here who believes that re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine is a good idea. I’ve heard all the arguments against, but none of them deals with the present situation.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:29 pmIn the current poisoned and biased political theatre, there should be some major penalty for spewing outright lies. Free speech isn’t free when the corporate media holds so much sway over the lines of communication.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:32 pmI hear what you’re saying, barfly, but I don’t trust the courts to choose what is truth in the political sphere. To use your phrasing, “this presupposes a world in which conservative-friendly courts do not exist.” And I believe that the court system is demonstrably biased.
The way to fight lies is with the truth. Don’t trust the courts to determine the truth about political matters.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:36 pmBush was on Iraq/WMD warpath LONG before 9/11. (video)
October 6th, 2007 at 12:41 pmJust read something interesting: Edwards found that Penn who is Hillary’s “karl rove†has ties to Blackwater. [...]
Comment by Veritas — October 6, 2007 @ 9:34 am
exactly my thought, if that’s the guy i saw “debating” obama’s guy during a break at one of the dem “debates”…
October 6th, 2007 at 12:42 pmmore of a goon though… mafia type… a real sweety… NOT.
.
[...] and next thing I know, I wake up in an alley in Kansas City…
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity @ 10:46 am
l o l …
October 6th, 2007 at 12:45 pmReasonable people can agree that Bush is a lying sack of flaming shit.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:46 pm#352
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 27-30, 2007. N=1,114 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). Fieldwork by TNS.
“Which political party — the Democrats or the Republicans — do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq?”
Democrats 49
October 6th, 2007 at 12:51 pmRepublicans 34
Both (vol.) 3
Neither (vol.) 11
Unsure 3
First, a doctor lying endangers life. A politician lying is par for the course.
No one dies.
Second, it’s not the ruling that “poisons the well of democracy,†it’s the lies themselves.
Comment by Wilco — October 6, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
3800 U.S. armed men and women would disagree, if a politician’s LIE hadn’t gotten them KILLED.
Moreover, when a politician lies it has much more sweeping implications than if a doctor lies to a patient. If a doctor lies to one patient about one procedure, one person might die. If a politician lies about one piece of legislation, thousands to millions might be injured or killed.
Sorry, you may think that lying is par for the course for politicians, but it should never be ACCEPTABLE. Too many LIVES are on the line. There are too many repercussions on our lives. If one bill displaced 1% of the national income, moving it from the bottom to the top, you severely negatively impact millions of lives, to the benefit of a literal handful of lives. If that bill was based on LIES, then LIES caused actual, real-world damages to millions of individuals.
Sorry, but lies that reach a certain level of impact , with the intent to trick someone or large groups to support an initiative they would not if presented with the facts is FRAUD, not merely “a lie”. Fraud is lying to such a degree that it is criminal.
fraud
October 6th, 2007 at 4:17 pm–noun
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.
I’m probably the only one here who believes that re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine is a good idea.
Comment by barfly — October 6, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
Nope, barfly – make that TWO! For a long while, when MSNBC was putting out those “tag team wrestling matches” as political comment, Chris Matthews, the original Media Putz would pit himself and two orther Clinton-hating, NeoCon knuckle draggers against some progressive (or even someone whose progressive credentials could use some improvement), and call it “fair.”
October 7th, 2007 at 3:38 am“Which political party — the Democrats or the Republicans — do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq?â€
Democrats 49
Republicans 34
Both (vol.) 3
Neither (vol.) 11
Unsure 3
Comment by RUCerious — October 6, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
If the Democrats could convince the 11%’ers and the 3%’ers that they can actually handle the situation, they would have a 63% majority going into the 2008. In the most recent Democratic presidential debates, the front runners didn’t convince me. Also, the Democratic Party’s treatment of Kucinich and Richardson, whom I believe CAN handle it, doesn’t reassure me about the Party’s “handling it” abilities!
October 7th, 2007 at 3:51 amBARTLEBEE,
You said I must provide proof of what you said to me that resulted in hard feelings. Well, I did. It is #292. I would like a response from you apologizing.
You started the troubles on this thread by saying something to a troll (richg ?) one hour and forty minutes after he left without referring to anyone by name and giving everyone the impression that you were addressing RemoveBush. Then in your usual fashion, everyone in the world other than you was wrong. You called people shithead, dickhead, morons, boneheads, and quite a few more. You said RemoveBush was a right-wing troll Bush-supporter and Clinton-hater.
You call this sarcasm and say they are at fault for not recognizing sarcasm. You say you did nothing wrong and others are to blame for not realizing that’s “the way I am”.
You have done this many times on many threads that become the “It’s All About Bartlebee Show”. It’s time for you to stop this and to start issuing apologies.
October 7th, 2007 at 9:28 pmBARTLEBEE,
Your attack on me (see #292 above) began when you thought I could not conprehend what a great convert to our cause Greenspan was, and I should not criticize him. Below is what Greenspan said on CNN’s Late Edition today:
GREENSPAN: He (Saddam) invaded Iran. He invaded Kuwait. He was threatening Saudi Arabia. And it was very clear to me, watching him for 30 years that where he was going was to try to control the flow of Middle East oil through the Straits of Hormuz, which, if you were able to do that, which is 18 million barrels a day out of 65 million — out of 85 million barrels a day, he could have shut down a substantial part of world production. And the effect would have been devastating.
He would have — I was fearful that he would do that if he could gain control, that is, purchase some nuclear device. And I have always been wondering with the problems of the — when the Cold War ended, and there was very serious questions at that time whether or not the Soviet arms had been protected, I had always assumed that a lot of them flowed out. And I must admit, I’m very surprised they haven’t shown up.
BLITZER: At this point. But do you still see oil as being a major factor, if not the major factor in driving U.S. policy toward Iraq right now?
GREENSPAN: Well, actually, I’m talking about my view in there. In other words, what the real economics of the dangers are. As far as the administration is concerned, I have no reason to disbelieve what they have been saying, namely that there were weapons of mass destruction. I thought there were weapons of mass destruction because of the way Saddam was behaving: What’s he hiding?
October 7th, 2007 at 10:54 pmBARTLEBEE,
IF I am wrong about what started the argument—I’m not researching the whole thing again. You still responded in the way you always do:
saying how ignorant other people are compared to you. Instantly attacking everyone around you. Personal insults like shithead, dickhead, bonehead, moron, etc. Calling longtime TP progressives right-wing trolls. Saying RemoveBush is pro-Bush and anti-Clinton, etc. Saying all this is sarcasm that others are too stupid to see. Saying others are at fault for not realizing that’s the way you are.
You are still not mentioning the Lantos-Greenspan thread (#292) in which you keep telling me how superior intellectually you are to me for seeing Greenspan as such a great convert. You are the one who fails to comprehend, because you called me a right-wing troll using an alias.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:43 amDidn’t he say very clearly that Clinton obviously was not responsible for GW1 and GW2? Noone in the world thinks that. Shouldn’t the name “RemoveBush” give you a hint?
October 8th, 2007 at 1:46 amBARTLEBEE,
No matter how many times I tell you to address the way you treated me in the Lanos_Greenspan thread (#292), you will not do it—because it shows how blatantly in the wrong you are. Greenspan on Late Edition (#381) proved how right I was and how wrong you were about him.
In this thread, the last thing richg says is at 9:22 pm. You respond to him using his name at 9:25. But then, 34 posts and one hour 31 minutes later (#92 @ 10:56) you say “Now as I was saying to the troll..”. You had been having some disagreement with RemoveBush during those 34 posts and 1:31, leading some to feel you were calling RB a troll.
In #99, you are telling RemoveBush that he is wrong in saying “Bill Clinton got those people killed”. But RB most definitely never said this. He would never say this. RB is a progressive in favor of impeaching Bush and Cheney. You said RB obscured, helped the trolls, and muddied the waters.
#102 RemoveBush asks you “what the hell you talking about Clinton for?????”.
#105, you say RemoveBush was trying to shootdown your response to richg. This was definitely not true.
#106, TripMasterMonkey asks who you were calling a troll @10:56.
#109, RemoveBush says Clinton had nothing to do with the Gulf Wars.
#110, you tell people to put down the booze.
#112, Koko the gorilla says you misunderstood RemoveBush
#114, TripMasterMonkey says you are copping an attitude when he asked a simple question.
#120, you accuse others of being stoned.
#125, you say RemoveBush is talking horseshit and drinking booze.
#127, TripMasterMonkey says he only asked a simple question and did not deserve to be treated this way—it’s not the way friends act.
#128, you tell RemoveBush “kiss my ass, boy”.
#131, you call RemoveBush “moron” and “Einstein”.
#136, you tell RemoveBush he is dumber than any troll.
#138, I explain what started the confusion.
#140, You call RemoveBush, “Mr Re-elect Bush”.
#175, you say to RemoveBush, “clearly you weren’t old enough to remember the Gulf War.” The truth is he was in the military then.
#213, you say “when I need your opinion, asswipe, I’ll give it to you”.
You then proceed to call fellow progressives: shithead, moron, half a brain, DickMasterMonkey, jackass, bullshit, dickhead, bonehead, etc.
#230 Zooey tells you that you have certainly done your part to exacerbate the problem.
#242, Zooey tells you that you are being absolutely vicious.
#275 you say that TripMasterMonkey sounds more like a woman than a guy.
October 9th, 2007 at 12:12 amYou’re right. Gregor, Koko, Zooey, TripMaster, RemoveBush, and I all have a problem perceiving reality. You were the only one in the entire thread would could perceive the truth that it was all the others ganging up on you. You did nothing wrong.
Jeeeeez. It’s like trying to get a jackass to comprehend trigonometry—bit of a waste of effort.
October 9th, 2007 at 8:15 pm