ThinkFast: October 9, 2007
ThinkFast: October 9, 2007
A private intelligence company, SITE Intelligence Group, is claiming that intel officials inside the administration prematurely leaked a tape of bin Laden that the company obtained off a secret al Qaeda communications system. The leak has caused al Qaeda’s system to suddenly “go dark.”
“Two months after vowing to roll back broad new wiretapping powers won by the Bush administration,” the NYT writes, “Congressional Democrats appear ready to make concessions that could extend some of the key powers granted to the National Security Agency.” Glenn Greenwald suggests “the picture is more complicated and less depressing than this NYT article suggests.”
In a new report, the Iraqi government wants the U.S. to “to sever all contracts in Iraq with Blackwater USA within six months and pay $8 million in compensation to each of the families of 17 people killed when the firm’s guards” opened fire in a Baghdad last month. The Iraqis also want the U.S. to hand over the guards involved in the incident for possible trial in Iraqi court.
Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, said the Army “will need three or four years to recover from the strains of repeated deployments to Iraq even with a planned drawdown of US forces next year.”
“Almost 40% of the people displaced from New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina” lived “below the poverty line last year,” according to a Census Bureau survey. The survey also found that “nearly a third of those who fled the hurricane could not find jobs last year, and thousands more weren’t trying.”
President Bush’s SCHIP veto has caused “fresh divisions” among Senate Republicans. “Because the president and Republican leaders are not pushing a positive health care agenda, a lot of people are not comfortable opposing anything that has children in it,” Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) told Roll Call that the “lack of a forceful positive agenda” has “sort of split our caucus.”
“Americans are hearing much less from the Bush administration about democracy for the Middle East than they did a year ago. As Shiite Iran rises, the White House has muted its calls for reform in the region as it redirects policy to reembrace Sunni Arab allies — who run, to varying degrees, authoritarian regimes.”
Six years after 9/11, “the ‘war on terror’ is failing and instead fueling an increase in support for extremist Islamist movements,” according to the Oxford Research Group, a British think tank. The group stated that a “fundamental re-think is required” if al Qaeda is to be rendered ineffective.
And finally: In the introduction of his new book, “I Am America (And So Can You!),” Stephen Colbert writes, “I AM NO FAN OF BOOKS. AND CHANCES ARE, IF YOU’RE READING THIS, YOU AND I SHARE A HEALTHY SKEPTICISM ABOUT THE PRINTED WORD. WELL, I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THIS IS THE FIRST BOOK I’VE EVER WRITTEN, AND I HOPE IT’S THE FIRST BOOK YOU’VE EVER READ. DON’T MAKE A HABIT OF IT.”
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, said the Army “will need three or four years to recover from the strains of repeated deployments to Iraq even with a planned drawdown of US forces next year.â€
—————————————–
Good luck with that if we invade Iran.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:04 am“Two months after vowing to roll back broad new wiretapping powers won by the Bush administration,†the NYT writes, “Congressional Democrats appear ready to make concessions that could extend some of the key powers granted to the National Security Agency.†Glenn Greenwald suggests “the picture is more complicated and less depressing than this NYT article suggests.â€
Are they DARING me to leave the party? They are clearly more scared of Republicans than they are of us. Hillary, Obama take note. I WILL NOT vote for any candidate that backs this. That includes the general election. And that would even be if I knew my one vote would decide the election.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:04 amOh, and Obama–do show up this time to vote AGAINST this. The campaign can wait.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:06 am“Because the president and Republican leaders are not pushing a positive health care agenda, a lot of people are not comfortable opposing anything that has children in it,â€
And why should anyone be ‘comfortable’ opposing children’s health care? Vampires like Malkin are actually preying on 12 yr olds, trying to inject some horror into a story that’s just sad.
The only thing positive the Bushies push is empty words about freedom.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:06 amThe survey also found that “nearly a third of those who fled the hurricane could not find jobs last year, and thousands more weren’t trying.â€
——————————————–
I don’t suppose the survey showed WHY thousands weren’t trying to find a job? Is it possible that these are people who hope to move back to N.O.?
October 9th, 2007 at 9:06 amSix years after 9/11, “the ‘war on terror’ is failing…
Bush’s prize jewel is turning into Zirconium.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:08 am“Congressional Democrats appear ready to make concessions that could extend some of the key powers granted to the National Security Agency.â€
Congressional Democrats have joined Congressional Republicans in gutting the constitution. And nothing said about what the Dems will receive in exchange for these concessions — if anything? Why on earth are the Dems rolling over and playing dead?
October 9th, 2007 at 9:09 amA private intelligence company, SITE Intelligence Group, is claiming that intel officials inside the administration prematurely leaked a tape of bin Laden that the company obtained off a secret al Qaeda communications system. The leak has caused al Qaeda’s system to suddenly “go dark.â€
If you ever needed confirmation of Bush’s lack of interest in actually finding Osama, here it is. It serves the Bush Admin’s twin goals of both using OBL as the boogeyman, while simultaneously letting him slink away.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:10 am“Americans are hearing much less from the Bush administration about democracy for the Middle East than they did a year ago.”
Perhaps the Bush administration finally realizes that 1) the American people want to get OUT of Iraq, and 2) the American people no longer have faith that any objective will be achieved there.
Therefore the strategy seems to now be to fly under the radar as much as possible, hoping that Americans will turn their attention to the problems of O.J. Simpson and Britney Spears.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:13 amThe Iraqis also want the U.S. to hand over the guards involved in the incident for possible trial in Iraqi court.
Good luck!
October 9th, 2007 at 9:14 amFrom Raw Story:
A retired lieutenant commander in the Navy Reserve who served with the Navy’s Supervisor of Salvage questioned in a little-noticed editorial Sunday why six active nuclear armed cruise missiles were being transferred to an active bomber base that “just happens to be the staging area for Middle Eastern operations.”
“The United States also does not transport nuclear weapons meant for elimination attached to their launch vehicles under the wings of a combat aircraft,” Navy veteran Robert Stormer wrote in the Texas-based Star-Telegram. “The procedure is to separate the warhead from the missile, encase the warhead and transport it by military cargo aircraft to a repository — not an operational bomber base that just happens to be the staging area for Middle Eastern operations.”
October 9th, 2007 at 9:14 am“Six years after 9/11, “the ‘war on terror’ is failing and instead fueling an increase in support for extremist Islamist movements,†according to the Oxford Research Group, a British think tank. The group stated that a “fundamental re-think is required†if al Qaeda is to be rendered ineffective.”
Can anybody here say DUH?
October 9th, 2007 at 9:15 amA private intelligence company, SITE Intelligence Group
Excuse me, but we are outsourcing our intelligence gathering along with the remainder of our government operations? A “for profit” company doing our intelligence work. There is something very wrong with this picture.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:18 amA private intelligence company, SITE Intelligence Group, is claiming that intel officials inside the administration prematurely leaked a tape of bin Laden that the company obtained off a secret al Qaeda communications system. The leak has caused al Qaeda’s system to suddenly “go dark.â€
This reminds me of the time then-Atty Gen John Ashcroft revealed to the public that they had intercepted bin Laden’s satellite phone calls. This public revelation was the reason bin Laden stopped using his satellite phone. Ashcroft was never punished in any way for leaking this classified information, because the administration somehow thought that this revelation was politically advantageous, and that short term domestic political advantage was more important than long term international counterterrorism success. They have to go. Now.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:19 amIn a new report, the Iraqi government wants the U.S. to “to sever all contracts in Iraq with Blackwater USA within six months
Wow, it sounds like the Iraqi government has finally found enough balls to stand up to the Bush Crime Family. I expect their next move is going to be to ask us to leave. What is Bush going to do then? The Iraqi government has already said there is no way that reconciliation is going to happen, so what is going to be the Bush administration’s next excuse for keeping our troops in harms way?
October 9th, 2007 at 9:20 amWhenever Bushitler wants to scare us, for political reasons, he trots out a video of Osama been forgotten.
The only way the military will recover from repeated deployments if Bushitler follows through with its plans to attack Iran is via a massive reinstatement of the draft. I would not count on any recovery for decades if that happens.
Congressional Democrats ready to make concessions….
October 9th, 2007 at 9:21 amAs I said before. Spineless COWARDS!!!
A private intelligence company, SITE Intelligence Group, is claiming that intel officials inside the administration prematurely leaked a tape of bin Laden that the company obtained off a secret al Qaeda communications system.
I presume this leaked just before Petraeus testified? 7 September it seems, merely 3 days before we were told to stay the course again.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:22 amso what is going to be the Bush administration’s next excuse for keeping our troops in harms way?
Comment by bilbobaggins
Protection from Iran.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:22 amSen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) told Roll Call that the “lack of a forceful positive agenda†has “sort of split our caucus.â€
Ya think? There is nothing positive coming from the Republicans. It’s nothing but “stay the course” in Iraq and in a domestic agenda. And since it’s “course” has been an unmitigated disaster on all fronts, the Republicans have nothing to give to their constituents.
November 2008 can’t come soon enough. It is going to be a Republican bloodbath.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:23 amBy invading Iraq as imperialistic monsters of the planet, we’ve given the extremist radicals all the fuel they need to label us as infidels. They don’t have to lift a finger to harm us; we’re destroying ourselves because we truly fit the bill as corrupt infidels at this point.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:24 amKatrina - Another Bush Botched Legacy
October 9th, 2007 at 9:24 amWe repudiate “radical extremists” and terrorists; yet our actions are becoming very similar to theirs. Blackwater, anyone?
October 9th, 2007 at 9:25 amGood luck with that if we invade Iran.
Comment by missmolly — October 9, 2007 @ 9:04 am
Invade Iran? No. We’re going to try “Shock & Awe, Part 2 - Now with more Awe.”
October 9th, 2007 at 9:25 amBush can do he wants to give the appearance of distance from the antics of hired murderers like Blackwater but the “employer” is equally guilty under the laws of this country. The one who “hires” the hitman goes to prison along with the hitman. Sorry Chimpy but you’re just as guilty and responsible for the actions of an independent contractor.
In real estate, if your office is full of sales people, they are called “independent contractors” which ONLY means, under the laws of this country, that you are not responsible for benefits to them and payroll taxes, etc. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the employer not being guilty for the unethical/illegal actions of the contractor.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:27 am[…Prematurely leaked a tape of Bin Hiding…!!.
The leak has caused Al-Qaeda’s system to SUDDENLY go ‘dark’ !!!
I think what suddenly went ‘dark’ was Bin Ladin’s beard…!!
October 9th, 2007 at 9:27 amI don’t suppose the survey showed WHY thousands weren’t trying to find a job? Is it possible that these are people who hope to move back to N.O.?
Comment by missmolly
Actually mismolly, I suspect it is more likely that they aren’t looking for a job because they have given up. Jobs are scarce these days, and are going to get even more scarce as the Bush Administration’s fiscal policies catch up with us. I fear we are heading for another depression.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:28 amIf we invade Iran for all the wrong reasons as we did with Iraq, it will mean the end of this country as we know it. We’re not playing with “small fish” here with Iran. Also, every other superpower in the world has their eyes on our actions right now and are just waiting for “one false move” and they will unite and destroy us like squashing a cockroach.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:29 amAnd now that the Brits have recovered their sanity with the departure of Bush’s “Poodle”, they’re ditching us, too. Who’s left as an ally at this point?
October 9th, 2007 at 9:30 am“The United States also does not transport nuclear weapons meant for elimination attached to their launch vehicles under the wings of a combat aircraft,â€
This is a very important story that has flown under the radar for too long. It is NOT a coincidence that these nuclear warheads ended up at the base that is the staging base for flights to the ME. It was also NOT an accident. I read another article where the military told congressional investigators that the accident happened because live nuclear warheads were kept in the same facility as dummy nuclear warheads. First, why would we need “dummy” nuclear warheads and second, the only reason why I could see that happening would be to “stage” an accidental moving of live warheads.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:33 amAnd now that the Brits have recovered their sanity with the departure of Bush’s “Poodleâ€, they’re ditching us, too. Who’s left as an ally at this point?
Comment by Veritas
Our new found friend France? They seem to be happy to go along with our Moron and Chief in being bellicose towards Iran. Perhaps their new leader has decided he wants a cut of the oil profits.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:34 amIt’s time to ‘CLEAN HOUSE IN 08′. It’s obvious that these con men/women in Congress are not representing the people at this point.
OUT WITH THEM ALL!
October 9th, 2007 at 9:36 amBilbo: Yes, it would appear that the accidental movement of live warheads is, again, not so happenstance as this lying group of scum would have us believe.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:37 am“Two months after vowing to roll back broad new wiretapping powers won by the Bush administration,†the NYT writes, “Congressional Democrats appear ready to make concessions
http://reid.senate.gov/contact/ (Las Vegas, NV 89101)
http://speaker.gov/contact/
October 9th, 2007 at 9:38 amBilbo: That’s what I presume. One of the reasons we become so antsy about Iraq’s oil was because France had cut a deal with them for it. Now the Chump is lobbying the new French PM to “cut a deal” with him, no doubt. So very cozy - Blood for Oil War rampages on.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:38 amIn real estate, if your office is full of sales people, they are called “independent contractors†which ONLY means, under the laws of this country, that you are not responsible for benefits to them and payroll taxes, etc. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the employer not being guilty for the unethical/illegal actions of the contractor.
Comment by Veritas — October 9, 2007 @ 9:27 am
That’s something I wondered about, too, in terms of how contractor is defined here. I am independent contractor - that means I am responsible for my own insurance, etc.
However, these contractors, including non-US workers, are covered for everything from disability, workers comp, medical and death benefits under the Department of Labor:
Just another way the US taxpayer is funding this war, I guess.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:41 amI can’t wait to see what Fred Thompson is going to say tonight about world affairs.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:42 amIt is going to be more entertaining than ‘Law & Order’…!!
OUT WITH THEM ALL!
Comment by Veritas
I so agree, with a few exceptions. These would be Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer. There may be a few more but my caffeine hasn’t kicked in yet.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:43 amThis SITE article doesn’t sit right with me. As a 501(C)(3) non-profit as Katzs’ should NOT have been sharing the video with policy makers who apparently supplied it to media outlets that used it for political purposes. [Recall the Bib Laden RWNuttia idiocy at that time]
SITE was used and thrown under the bus.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:44 amI don’t suppose the survey showed WHY thousands weren’t trying to find a job? Is it possible that these are people who hope to move back to N.O.?
Comment by missmolly — October 9, 2007 @ 9:06 am
And maybe the fact that many of the jobs that are in NOLA are being filled by imported workers and almost all the contracts were let to imorted companies (i.e. Halliburton, etc.).
Just another example of how BushCo and the Repugs hate poor people, and Black people in particular. I do hope all the Minorities remember that when it comes time to go to the polls next November.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:44 amActually mismolly, I suspect it is more likely that they aren’t looking for a job because they have given up. Jobs are scarce these days, and are going to get even more scarce as the Bush Administration’s fiscal policies catch up with us. I fear we are heading for another depression.
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 9, 2007 @ 9:28 am
You’re right — it’s early and I still haven’t been sufficiently caffeinated. I know from my own days of unemployment that as soon as your unemployment insurance runs out you are considered off the unemployment rolls, and for statistical purposes you are considered “not looking” whether you actually still are trying to get a job or not.
This is the segment of the population that the wingnuts label “lazy” — whether they are displaced New Orleaneans or just other Americans falling through the cracks of the system.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:45 am“…intel officials inside the administration prematurely leaked a tape of bin Laden”
Just in time for the annual 9/11 puff and bluster from the Butcher administration.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:45 amTo the best of my knowledge, this leak would be considered aiding and abetting the enemy, a treasonous offense.
However, these contractors, including non-US workers, are covered for everything from disability, workers comp, medical and death benefits under the Department of Labor
Our taxes are also paying death benefits to the surviving family and the payments far exceed the death payments that slain military families receive. This is so wrong I just don’t know where to start. First they are paid an exorbitant salary and then they get better benefits than our own military gets on our dime.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:46 amWay to go Malkin and the uncompassionate Malkontents!!
Theres your backfire.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:47 amYes, Bilbo, these three (and perhaps others who have not yet come to mind) are deserving to remain but all the rest need to go. We’ve got to clean house of all perverts, hypocrites, war mongers, and those taking bribes from big business in exchange for a vote.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:47 amAhhh, yes. Private “intelligence companies.” The U.S. Government is hiring private eyes in disguise as spies.
Anybody want to guess that they, too, are beyond the reach of the law, and the Constitution, just as Blackwater is?
And, if they violate your Constitutional rights in the name of the War on Terror, you cannot sue them, as they are insulated from civil claims under the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
The United States has become the World’s Greatest Terrorist. Therefore, to win the War on Terror, the United States must fall.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:49 amMiss Vitriol Personified, Malkin, is the Repuke “whore of the day”, isn’t she? She’s being fed the lines and is too immature to realize that she’ll live to regret the lies she is telling to americans later. Malkin makes the case for “ignorance IS bliss”>
October 9th, 2007 at 9:49 amFirst they are paid an exorbitant salary and then they get better benefits than our own military gets on our dime.
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 9, 2007 @ 9:46 am
Yes, I don’t understand this at all. These companies have billion-dollar contracts and they don’t provide for their own employees? And we’re whining about providing health care for families because companies and corporations here can’t or won’t do it.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:50 amBrise: Looks like OBL’s prophesy is coming to fruition. He said that the US is and will be known as the “greatest terrorist on the planet”. Looks like he’ll be proven accurate.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:50 amCBS web news just posted an article with the header
“White House leaked bin Laden video”
Heh.
Check the basement, see if Karl Rove is still lurking there in some storage closet…
October 9th, 2007 at 9:51 amBilbo, why are we still calling Mercs “contractors?”
October 9th, 2007 at 9:51 amThe Iraqis also want the U.S. to hand over the guards involved in the incident for possible trial in Iraqi court.
Fat chance. Didn’t they get the memo that freedom is hard work. As the “occupied” in an occupation, they don’t get squat to say about their people getting shot up by our mercs.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:51 amthe Army “will need three or four years to recover from the strains of repeated deployments
And while we’re at it, lets get back to a self sufficient army that cooks, supplies and transports its own troops…
October 9th, 2007 at 9:52 amGeez
Of course its failing, the RWNuttia is running around talking about a world war on Islam which HELPS extremist wackos recruit people to their cause.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:53 amFirst of all, congress isn’t providing it’s oversight position by looking into putting a rubber stamp on companies like Blackwater in the first place - derelection of duty by Congress. And they just awarded another $92 billion contract to them last week! Following that, the Iraqi government now wants Blackwater OUT. WTF is going on?
We’re paying them through the nose to do our killing and torture for us so Bush and his corrupt cadre can stand up there and repeat publicly: “We Don’t torture” “We don’t murder”. Notice how he refers to the terrorists as “murderers” all the time? If the shoe fits, wear it, Dumbo.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:53 am“…a lot of people are not comfortable opposing anything that has children in it,â€
So, does this mean the Bush administration will unveil the Children’s Total Surveillance Program, aimed at total surveillance on anyone who can see children, because “a lot of people are not comfortable opposing anything that has children in it”?
October 9th, 2007 at 9:53 amthe Oxford Research Group, a British think tank. The group stated that a “fundamental re-think is required†if al Qaeda is to be rendered ineffective.
That would ostensible include not kissing Israel’s ass every time they drop their drawers…
October 9th, 2007 at 9:54 amor may be ostensibly…
October 9th, 2007 at 9:54 amIt’s still imperative that the people get to the bottom of 911 - who knew what and when. Therein lies all the information and clues we need. OBL still maintains that he was not responsible for the attack (as per History channel special on Taliban yesterday) yet Bush labeled him as the perpetrator within a day or two. Something stinks here….and stinks to high heaven.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:54 amBush was afraid that his connections to the BL bros would be outed as well as the fact that OBL worked for the CIA in Afghan when we wanted the Russians driven out. I wonder whom the Russians are allying with right this minute…hmmmm…
October 9th, 2007 at 9:55 amFirst they are paid an exorbitant salary and then they get better benefits than our own military gets on our dime.
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 9, 2007
But but but..privatization saves money!!
/snark
October 9th, 2007 at 9:56 amMaybe progressives that still believe Saddam had his sovereign right to lead his country that had no relationship to worldwide terror, should listen to someone who was there.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Sorry Right Wing Loon Captain, I would rather listen to someone who doesn’t have an agenda and an ax to grind.
I wonder how much we are paying these people and how reliable their intel is. My guess is that they are about as reliable as Chilabi was.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:01 amTherein lies all the information and clues we need. OBL still maintains that he was not responsible for the attack (as per History channel special on Taliban yesterday) yet Bush labeled him as the perpetrator within a day or two.
And, we have ZERO proof that bin Laden was the mastermind behind 911. If we had any proof, his wanted poster would list 911 as a crime he had committed. Right now it doesn’t.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:03 amIn a new report, the Iraqi government wants the U.S. to “to sever all contracts in Iraq with Blackwater USA within six months and pay $8 million in compensation to each of the families of 17 people killed when the firm’s guards†opened fire in a Baghdad last month. The Iraqis also want the U.S. to hand over the guards involved in the incident for possible trial in Iraqi court.
If I remember my misreported Iraq War history correctly, it was “Ambassador” L. Paul “Jerry” Bremer who decided that our private contractors would be above Iraqi law. I hope the Iraqis take this all the way to an international court who will rule on the illegality of many of Bremer’s decrees. And if the Iraqis win, I can only hope that this administration will do what it frequently, and falsely, claims it will do, and that is respect the law and the decision of the court.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:03 amCandyce: Re: Independent Conractors
This scheme dates back to mafioso days and probably before in this country. Although Blackwater Corp. is a bona fide “independent contractor” with the US Government, those whom it employes are considered “employees of Blackwater” and, as employees, should have benefits.
This is a two layered scheme in order to hide culpability in a long chain of contracts.
Blackwater Corp becomes the “independent contractor” of the US; it’s contract killers are “employees” of Blackwater. Meant to be confusing.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:06 amFirst of all, congress isn’t providing it’s oversight position by looking into putting a rubber stamp on companies like Blackwater in the first place - derelection of duty by Congress. And they just awarded another $92 billion contract to them last week! Following that, the Iraqi government now wants Blackwater OUT. WTF is going on?
It was NOT Congress that gave Blackwater the contract, it was the Bush administration. Congress appropriates the money, but doesn’t make contracts with companies to provide goods and services.
This is a huge embarrassment and problem for the Bush Administration. If they refuse to do what the Iraqi government is asking us to do and remove Blackwater, they will be telling the world that the government in Iraq is, in the eyes of this administration, an extension of the US government.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:06 amThis scheme dates back to mafioso days and probably before in this country. Although Blackwater Corp. is a bona fide “independent contractor†with the US Government, those whom it employes are considered “employees of Blackwater†and, as employees, should have benefits.
If they are considered to be employees of Blackwater, then why is our government paying their benefits? Shouldn’t Blackwater be paying their benefits out of the billion dollars of taxpayer money they have collected?
October 9th, 2007 at 10:08 amRE: Gen. Casey- well, he SAID it- and it looks like Sec. Gates is also speaking up to Cheney, so maybe, just maybe, — this time– the NeoCONS don’t get their way.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:08 amCapManastic: Would your favorite book perhaps be “MY PET GOAT”. It would appear consistent with your IQ and level of comprehension.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:09 amBilbo: Yes, if the government is paying them or their benefits, they can no longer be called, under contract law in this country, “independent contractors” and must be called “employees”.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:11 amThen, how could they silence the thousands of people involved to cover it up; when they can’t even safeguard a bin laden tape for a month.
The same way they silence the government employees who are privy to the crimes they have committed. Fear and smear. Plus, it would not take “thousands of people” to orchestrate something like 911.
I am not sure that our government planned 911. But I am sure that they intentionally allowed it to happen. I am willing to bet that they knew it was going to happen down to when and where. But they sat by and allowed it to happen. Why was NORAD ordered to stand down? Why didn’t they shoot these planes down before they did their damage? Why wasn’t Bush surprised when he heard the terrible news? There’s more but I’m too fuzzy this morning to think of what they are.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:12 amIt could be that they are employees of this government for all intents and purposes and Bush is hoping that the people’s anger will be quelled by suggesting that it’s all the fault of Blackwater. It’s possible that Bush’s third “poodle”, Eric Prince, may find himself between a rock and a hard place as the Iraqi’s press him further. Bush is blaming Blackwater and Prince; Prince will then finger Bush. Once Prince realizes that his can of corruption is being jacked open, he may crash and expose it all on his way down.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:13 amBilbo: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,….I think you’ve just convinced yourself. By the time all of the misdeeds of the Bush Crime Cabal have been outed, it will become a foregone conclusion that he had his fingerprints all over 911. And, how hilarious that we can’t find OBL, the american boogeyman?? How absurd can you get.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:15 amMaybe progressives that still believe Saddam had his sovereign right to lead his country that had no relationship to worldwide terror, should listen to someone who was there.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — October 9, 2007 @ 9:40 am
This is a ridiculous, jumbled up mess of non-logic, and yer a freakin’ idiot.
Geez!!!!
October 9th, 2007 at 10:15 amBy then, he will have lied to the people a gazillion times so the idea that he was being truthful about 911 will be total joke. After all, one just doesn’t awaken one day and realize that their bedmate has been lying to them or cheating on them…..it’s all of the little lies along the way….the clues….and suddenly, it all becomes crystal clear.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:16 amWould the Manastic El Capitan be none other than our piss soaked troll with yet another schizophrenic moniker?
October 9th, 2007 at 10:17 amPakistani jets pound militant stronghold
Tue Oct 9, 2007 9:43am EDT By Haji Mujtaba
MIRANSHAH, Pakistan (Reuters) - Pakistani warplanes on Tuesday pounded militant positions in North Waziristan, as fighting raged for a fourth day in a tribal region known as an al Qaeda and Taliban stronghold, an army spokesman said.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:17 am[…]
http://www.reuters.com/ article/ worldNews/ idUSSP30874520071009
Parting shot: If it smells like complicity, walks like complicity, and the facts begin to stack up like complicity, then 911 reeks of complicity. Toodles, TP friends!
October 9th, 2007 at 10:18 amSomeone in Congress needs to get to the heart of Blackwater’s real relationship with our government; if we’re paying them or providing them with benefits, then they are our “employees” reducing the chain of liability significantly in our behalf.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:19 amWayne says
“If I remember my misreported Iraq War history correctly, it was “Ambassador†L. Paul “Jerry†Bremer who decided that our private contractors would be above Iraqi law.”
And I agree — I seem to recall that doing so was the last bit of business signed before he left Iraq.
It is frustrating beyond expression that the media does not investigate, much less follow up with news information. If it weren’t for “escapees” from the WH asylum, or for bloggers digging deep and not letting go of what they find, we would be totally ignorant. As it is now, we are not totally ignorant, but slipping into despair for the inability to shake the trees hard enough to let the facts fall out.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:19 amfrom the google news page:
Security guards kill two women in Baghdad
Reuters - 41 minutes ago
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Private security guards escorting a convoy of four vehicles through central Baghdad killed two women on Tuesday, the Iraqi government and police said.
Iraqi report calls for end to US-Blackwater contracts San Jose Mercury News
Pentagon is pressed on killings of Iraqis Boston Globe
October 9th, 2007 at 10:20 amFact: No terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 9, 2007 @ 10:21 am
Sorry… not proof.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:23 amBTW, I see that Neuticlesâ„¢ are really workin’ out fer ya!
Mebbe you can talk ta mantastic about ‘em. he needs a pair too!
October 9th, 2007 at 10:25 amFact: No terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.
Comment by O. Bigpoot
Why bother?
October 9th, 2007 at 10:25 amIt’s so much easier to head for Iraq….
Fact: No terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.
Comment by O. BigfootInMouth — October 9, 2007 @ 10:21 am
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! Wrong answer!
Anthrax mailing that killed 5 American citizens and terrorized a nation, was post 9/11.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:26 amDC snipers that terrorized the east cost for months, was post 9/11.
Geez, where do you get your “facts” from? mAnn Coulter?
Anybody want to guess that they, too, are beyond the reach of the law, and the Constitution, just as Blackwater is?
And, if they violate your Constitutional rights in the name of the War on Terror, you cannot sue them, as they are insulated from civil claims under the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — October 9, 2007 @ 9:49 am
A fundamental question that needs to be addressed is, “Can the administration pre-emptively absolve anyone of constitutional violations?” Sure, the president can always issue a pardon after the fact, but the president is also supposed to review the incident in question and decide if a pardon is appropriate. He is not supposed to just give the green light to violate the law and the constitution ahead of time. (They have to at least pretend that the law and the constitution have meaning.)
I do understand that the Congress has the constitutional authority to decide what is and what isn’t reviewable by the Judiciary. Unfortunately, the Bush administration also feels they have this same authority.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:28 amFact: No terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.
Comment by O. Bigpoot
Its the one Bush missed on 9/11 that really bothers me though.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:32 am… i don’t understand why it will take almost 50 years…
that’s not enough of a kick in the pants… but…
Barack Obama attempted to bring a fresh face to an old political issue in Portsmouth, N.H., Monday, proposing a comprehensive energy plan that attempts to combat global warming while ensuring American energy security.
Obama called for an economy-wide cap and trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050 and an investment of $150 billion over the next 10 years to develop new technologies to create sources of renewable energy, advanced biofuels and the safe use of nuclear power. He also called for greater U.S. engagement with the world in combating climate change, and spoke of the importance of individual responsibility in reducing energy consumption, saying that he would even sign a ban on incandescent light bulbs.
The plan received praise from the League of Conservation Voters for embracing a mandatory cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions, a step that his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Clinton, has not advocated.
But in his remarks, Obama also skated a fine line between the history of U.S. energy policy and the ability of political leaders to pass comprehensive energy reform; between his criticism of the role energy lobbyists played in the Bush energy bill and his vote for that bill.
His speech opened with a nod to that history, by showing a montage of every president since Richard Nixon, all promising to reduce American dependence on foreign oil.
Obama blamed not only the power of the energy lobbyists in Washington interests in Washington for stymieing energy reforms but also the politicians that allowed that system to continue to exist.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:33 am[…]
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/ archive/ 2007/ 10/ 09/ 403124.aspx
.
Fact: No terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.
Comment by O. Bigpoot
Its the one Bush missed on 9/11 that really bothers me though.
Comment by dim wit — October 9, 2007 @ 10:32 am
And don’t forget the terrorist attacks on the people of the US by BushCo; the loss of much of the Constitution, the Rule of Law, Habeus Corpus, destruction of the middle class, loss of world respect, et. al.
Those are the REAL targets of OBL, to destroy our country from within, and they are succeeding!
October 9th, 2007 at 10:37 am“Almost 40% of the people displaced from New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina†lived “below the poverty line last year,†according to a Census Bureau survey. The survey also found that “nearly a third of those who fled the hurricane could not find jobs last year, and thousands more weren’t trying.â€
Louisiana always placed at or near the bottom of the list for impoverished populations, so how is this statistic relevent? What is the comparison to the poverty rate prior to Hurricane Katrina? I guarentee that fewer people are living below sea level, so that is a definite improvement - try factoring that in.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:38 amFact: No successful terrorist attacks on U.S. soil during Pres. Clinton’s 8 years AFTER the FAILED 1993 attack!
I guess that Pres. Clinton had a better record than Pres. Bush because Pres. Bush DIDN’T stop the Sept. 11th attack, and Pres. Clinton DID stop the planned millennium bombing.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:38 amFact: No terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 9, 2007 @ 10:21 am
This continues to be the stupidest rationale for all the misdeeds of this administration. First of all, there were 8 years between the first WTC bombing (1993) and 9/11. If your rationale is correct, then this period of freedom from attacks on U.S. soil was due to actions taken by the Clinton administration to prevent them. Do you agree with this? Secondly, if and when there is another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil before Bush leaves office, will you then believe the “war on terror” is successful?
October 9th, 2007 at 10:41 amOnce again, you neglect to mention Hill’reh rounding up her old White House cronies, namely Sandy “Burglar” Berger. You do realize that it was this hubris by Hill’reh that got Bubba impeached, right?
Once Bubba won re-election, imperial Hill’reh responded to congressional inquiries into the Paula Jones scandal with contempt, which pissed off the Congress so bad that they impeached her husband.
This woman never learns, and it is this behaviour that will cause her NOT to be elected in 2008.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:43 amWorth repeating to the jugheads around here:
Fact: No successful terrorist attacks on U.S. soil during Pres. Clinton’s 8 years AFTER the FAILED 1993 attack!
I guess that Pres. Clinton had a better record than Pres. Bush because Pres. Bush DIDN’T stop the Sept. 11th attack, and Pres. Clinton DID stop the planned millennium bombing.
Comment by Democrat Soldier
October 9th, 2007 at 10:45 am#94 - “Our people deserve the best protection they can get in Iraq, and that means keeping them safe and out of harm, and that requires neutralizing any threat.” Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 9, 2007 @ 10:41 am
It also includes properly armoring their vehicles and providing proper body armor.
Care to discuss why the Republican-led congress refused to properly armor the troops OR their vehicles?
Why do the Republicans hate our soldiers so much they refused (and continue to refuse) to armor them or their vehicles?
October 9th, 2007 at 10:46 am(yawn), Oh, Bigfoot. I have to hand it to you, you’re consistent.
The British didn’t ‘fail’ on anything. They came to their senses when Bush’s Poodle resigned.
Wasn’t the mission, at least at one point in time, to ‘Stand down when the Iraqis Stand up’? Wasn’t it?
The Brits did their job in Basra. Now they’re doing what the mission entailed.
In fact, they’re training them over there so we don’t have to deny immigration to them here!
October 9th, 2007 at 10:46 amOh yeah, I like how the Rightists sheep have turned the greatest failure of our government and military leadership to protect this country since Pearl Harbor into a legendary and tragic event that propelled their incompetent President to glory.
I swear the thought of having a great struggle like WWII has left them jealous and salivating for 50 years. 9/11 was not a disaster it was a friggin opportunity to them. They say, “Now let’s wee if W can fit in FDR’s shoes and show up them Democrats.” PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:47 am#97, Dumbshit Soldier,
The various covert / law enforcement agencies of the US have stopped countless planned attacks in the US, and they have been reported in the news, so get over yourself. Do you really have to sink that low to feel good about Bubba Clinton?
October 9th, 2007 at 10:48 amThe mission in Iraq: To kill as many of our soldiers as possible for Bush’s Oil.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:49 am#100, notso swift,
FDR’s reputation is all hype, no substance. Like most Dems, he only acted after being forced by external forces, and was ultimately duped by Stalin. Dubya is pre-emptive, causing Libya and N. Korea to give up nukes, hanging Saddam Hussein and eventually striking Iran.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:51 amWow, it sounds like the Iraqi government has finally found enough balls to stand up to the Bush Crime Family. I expect their next move is going to be to ask us to leave. What is Bush going to do then? The Iraqi government has already said there is no way that reconciliation is going to happen, so what is going to be the Bush administration’s next excuse for keeping our troops in harms way?
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 9, 2007 @ 9:20 am
Well, in the past, we’ve said we’ll leave if asked…
Leaders of Iraq’s sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis called Monday for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in the country and said Iraq’s opposition had a “legitimate right†of resistance.
Looks like President Bush needs a new excuse.
UPDATE: From the Washington Post, 5/15/04:
Secretary of State Colin Powell emphatically said yesterday that if the incoming Iraqi interim government ordered the departure of foreign troops after June 30, they would pack up without protest, but emphasized he doubted such a request would be made.
… “If the provisional government asks us to leave, we will leave,†Bremer said, referring to an Iraqi administration due to take power June 30. “I don’t think that will happen, but obviously we don’t stay in countries where we’re not welcome.â€
Filed under: Iraq
Posted by Judd November 22, 2005 10:16 am
and…
On Monday, Iraqi political leaders called on the U.S. to set a timetable for withdrawal. In January, President Bush said that if asked by the Iraqis, U.S. forces would leave the country:
President Bush said in an interview on Thursday that he would withdraw American forces from Iraq if the new government that is elected on Sunday asked him to do so, but that he expected Iraq’s first democratically elected leaders would want the troops to remain as helpers, not as occupiers.
Bush has now been asked to withdraw. Will he stick to his word?
(Thanks to reader chill for the tip.)
Filed under:
October 9th, 2007 at 10:52 amPosted by Judd November 22, 2005 11:27
Our people deserve the best protection they can get in Iraq, and that means keeping them safe and out of harm, and that requires neutralizing any threat.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 9, 2007 @ 10:41 am
You have got to be one of the stupidest people I have ever read.
I thought the military (the best in the world, no less!) was capable of doing its job. But I could be wrong. But basically you are saying that our military is not good enough to keep politicians safe when they come to visit. That basically our military is not good enough to do the military’s job. Liberal smear, nice spin. Are you dizzy yet? You know, if the government that is paying BW all their saleries and all their benefits wouldn’t that be the same as spending that money to pay our military the same pay and give them the same benefits? So what is the purpose of BW again? Oh yeah, freee rein with no accountability. Get a clue moron.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:53 amMiss Vitriol Personified, Malkin, is the Repuke “whore of the dayâ€-Veritas
Well said, Veritas. One small disagreement, however…
Malkin, is the Repuke “whore of the century”
You post some great comments, Veritas. I also have to mention katy, missmolly & Candyce.
You go, girls!
October 9th, 2007 at 10:54 amCongress needs to be VERY careful with this if they wish to be able to continue to visit Iraq safely. What part do you not understand? comment by bigfoot
So you are saying our troops aren’t capable of keeping visiting dignitaries safe in Iraq? Why do you hate our troops? And if we were in a real war, we would have a draft and would have sufficient numbers of military to do the jobs currently outsourced, and at a bout a 1/4th the cost to the US taxpayer. But that is not the BushCo way, gotta feed the military/industrial hogs at the trough.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:56 amTP asks “what did we miss” ans I’ve gotta say that I don’t read much here about our economy and the rising price of everything.
I hear that inflation is not an issue in America and I must beg to differ. Unfortunately “core” inflation statistics leave out energy and food costs. Have you been to the grocery store lately? Never mind energy costs, they are insane (man I miss the $1.27 gas under President Clinton). The price of meat is crazy, I looked at a brisket yesterday, and a brisket is not high-end meat, and it was $45, and a T-bone was marked down for quick sale to $17.
People are getting squeezed in this country. How about some coverage of what the average man is struggling with TP.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:56 amimagine that…
Top court won’t hear appeal in CIA torture case
Tue Oct 9, 2007 10:46am EDT By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A German citizen who says he was kidnapped, imprisoned and tortured by the CIA lost his appeal on Tuesday when the Supreme Court refused to review a decision dismissing the case because it would expose state secrets.
Attorneys for Khaled el-Masri, a German of Lebanese descent, argued in the high court appeal that his lawsuit did not depend on the disclosure of state secrets and that it should be allowed to go forward in U.S. court.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:03 am[…]
http://www.reuters.com/ article/ topNews/ idUSWAT00823120071009
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 9, 2007 @ 10:41 am
What’s going on is that Blackwater is contracted to provide security to congressmen and women on their visits to Iraq, thus freeing up the military to do military duties. Congress needs to be VERY careful with this if they wish to be able to continue to visit Iraq safely. What part do you not understand?
Protecting our elected officials when traveling overseas is supposed to be one of their “military duties.” It was Rumsfeld (and his ilk) who felt that privatizing our military was in our nation’s best interests. It wasn’t, of course, but try telling that to some bonehead who thinks that anything that makes a profit for a corporation is inherently a good thing.
And of course we, as a nation, don’t torture, and we don’t murder. And neither does Blackwater, which is comprised of mostly former U.S. military.
Really? You honestly believe this? How naive. BTW, can we assume that if it was a contractor other than Blackwater that military personnel at Abu Ghraib said instructed them to do internationally illegal things to the prisoners, will you still assert that they didn’t “torture” anyone? Someone did those things to them, they didn’t just decide to take off their own clothes and get in a giant naked pile. Are you trying to claim that it wasn;t our government or anyone in their employ who did these abuses? (They were abused, you agree to that, right?)
You folks keep calling for an end to the “Iraq Warâ€â€¦therefore, you must in some way understand that this is, indeed, war. War involves death and destruction. Always has, always will.
Try to understand something. “We” refer to the “Iraq War” to differentiate the military role there from the one in Afghanistan which, most Americans would agree, is where the so-called “War on Terror” should be fought. The “War in Iraq” had nothing to do initially with fighting terrorism, and if any terrorists exist there now, it’s because we made it possible and easier for them to be there. And while this may be difficult for a simpleton to understand, war does not always have to involve death and destruction. Some wars are fought economically, and some are fought through the media (such as Fox News Channel’s “War on Truth”.)
Finally:
Our people deserve the best protection they can get in Iraq, and that means keeping them safe and out of harm, and that requires neutralizing any threat.
Or taking them out of harm’s way. Does every conflict for you involve someone having to die? The “threat” doesn’t come from the terrorists themselves, it comes from the ideas they have, and you can’t kill an idea. All you can do is expose it for the falsehood it is. As long as people are willing to turn off their brains and believe the crap that the Wahabbiists are espousing, terrorism will exist. It cannot be defeated militarily, it can only be defeated educationally.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:03 am1 in 5 Democrats say it would be better for the United States if the U.S. lost the war in Iraq.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:05 amComment by O. BigfootInMouth — October 9, 2007 @ 10:56 am
Care to back that up?
Link?
Or will you run away like when we exposed your BS regarding no attacks after 9/11?
“Almost 40% of the people displaced from New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina†lived “below the poverty line last year,†according to a Census Bureau survey. The survey also found that “nearly a third of those who fled the hurricane could not find jobs last year, and thousands more weren’t trying.â€
This is a great improvement. Only 30% of the same people were living below poverty before. Perhaps they enjoy being underprivileged.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:05 amThe Constitution is doing just fine. Rule of Law? George W. Bush has taken great pains to make sure that the actions he has taken have been legal. bigfoot
Your whole post is so ludicrous and shows the lack of awareness of what is really going on in this country that I have to look at the target-rich environment and pick the above comment as the winner.
If you think Gonzo and BushCo have taken “great pains” to protect our Constitution, you have not listened to any of the Constitutional law professors, ex-Republican legal advisors, etc. The majority say we have strayed so far from the Constitution it will take years to restore it.
But the best part is your attitude that is so typical of Repugs: I got mine, “Cheney you!” I also, have been blessed with a great life, but I also am aware by my travels and reading, that it isn’t true for a large percentage of my fellow citizens.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:05 amAccording to a British “think tank� It may be failing for the Brits, but it’s certainly succeeding for the United States…
Fact: No terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 9, 2007 @ 10:21 am
More of the “fighting them over there…” propaganda, eh?
I guess those terrorist “plots” that have been broken up since 9/11 really didn’t exist, did they? No, of course not. It wasn’t police work or stakeouts or investigations or legal wiretapping that broke up the plots involving bottled water or an attack on Fort Dix or destroying the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches, it was the men and women of the United States Armed Forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan that broke them up and prevented them.
But it sure as hell hasn’t stopped the Republicans, including the vice president of the United States and members of Congress, from exercising fear mongering and trying to convince America that the next terrorist target is the fruit section of the local grocery store.
People like you like to talk about how much safer that Bush has made us since 9/11, yet turn right around and tell us that the terrorists will destroy us if given the chance. You afraid of a terrorist will get in the country and blow himself up in a crowded mall, killing 30 people? What if an employee of that mall is fired and returns several days later armed to the teeth and opens fire on shoppers and kills the same number of people? I sure as hell don’t see Republican supporters of this “war,†including members of Congress, warning America on almost a daily basis to be afraid of disgruntled ex-employees. Oh no. But if we withdraw from Iraq? Oh, all hell will break loose and the terrorists will get us in our grocery stores.
Was New York City scared into submission after 9/11 and after the first WTC bombing? No. Was Oklahoma City scared into submission after the Murrah building was bombed (by an American)? No. Was America scared into submission after the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole? No.
Was America destroyed by each of these attacks? No.
You want to fight terrorism? Go for it. But don’t invade and attack a country that was not a threat to this country, inviting even more people to turn against us.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:08 ami must engage, just this once…
Our military has better things to do than act as personal bodyguards to congressmen and congresswomen…
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 9, 2007 @ 11:05 am
ok - but then why should ANYone get paid ten (10) times as much as that soldier who USED to have such duties?
the military should be self sufficient, AS IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN …
October 9th, 2007 at 11:12 am… until BushCo… bushco has destroyed the military…
FOR PROFIT.
.
Wayne, this needs to be said again…your post encapsulates truths:
The “threat†doesn’t come from the terrorists themselves, it comes from the ideas they have, and you can’t kill an idea. All you can do is expose it for the falsehood it is. As long as people are willing to turn off their brains and believe the crap that the Wahabbiists are espousing, terrorism will exist. It cannot be defeated militarily, it can only be defeated educationally.
“Their is no military solution in Iraq” -General Patreaus / 1-07
October 9th, 2007 at 11:15 amOur people deserve the best protection they can get in Iraq, and that means keeping them safe and out of harm, and that requires neutralizing any threat.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 9, 2007 @ 10:41 am
You’re such a rancid phony.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:15 amBad Eye,
“I guess those terrorist “plots†that have been broken up since 9/11 really didn’t exist, did they? No, of course not. It wasn’t police work or stakeouts or investigations or legal wiretapping that broke up the plots…”
You’re damn right it wasn’t any of those things, most every “plot” that was discovered was called in by a private citizen, didn’t have d!ck to do with our new secret army of bugs.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:18 amComment by O. Bigfoot — October 9, 2007 @ 10:41 am
There’s no point in arguing w/ this twit. He’s unreachable.
He has NO interest in debate or facts or the truth.
He will be Heiling Brusch until the last bitter second.
(I suspect he’s paid to do this. No one could be this f-in’ stupid in real life.)
October 9th, 2007 at 11:18 amNone of this attributable to foreign terrorism.
Comment by O. BigfootInMouth — October 9, 2007 @ 11:12 am
1) The mythical war on terror now only includes foreigners? Thus a citizen of the United States can not terrorize?
2) Please provide proof that the Anthrax terror was not “foreign”. Do you know something about these terrorist attacks?
October 9th, 2007 at 11:19 am(I suspect he’s paid to do this. No one could be this f-in’ stupid in real life.)
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — October 9, 2007 @ 11:18 am
Sadly, he is just one of the 30%ers still out there, and they will be like the Japanese in the caves after WWII, still yammering away after their big defeat in 08.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:20 amGoogle it yourself, brainiac. It’s well documented among liberals that when someone posts a link which counters liberal talking points, the liberal in question merely discounts or ignores the link.
Comment by O. BigfootInMouth — October 9, 2007 @ 11:18 am
I accept your defeat in not providing proof that 1 in 5 Democrats say it would be better for the United States if the U.S. lost the war in Iraq,
and just to further embarrass you, please explain how the U.S. would lose a war that has been declared Mission Accomplished?
October 9th, 2007 at 11:24 amOh my God, a new low. Yes you did, no I didn’t, yes you did, no I didn’t….
Don’t argue with idiots, it wastes your time and annoys the idiot
October 9th, 2007 at 11:30 amO. BigfootInMouth,
October 9th, 2007 at 11:31 amYou are the one who said that my examples were not foreign terrorism.
The burden of proof is on you.
Please provide examples of the Anthrax scares being from a citizen or citizens of the United States.
It really is simple.
“No, you merely need to get your head out of the sand and look around for a change…no more liberal talking points for you! Learn to think, man! You sound like a parrot..”
Comment by O. Bigfoot
This comes from the guy who parroted the now-debunked “republicans honor our soldiers’ sacrifice” - meme, the day before Rush made his phony soldiers comments?
The irony is sweet.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:31 amYou go, girls!
Comment by Zimzone @ 10:54 am
thanks! … you too!…
out to the garden for a while…
g’day all…
“and when i get back that mess better be cleaned up!”
October 9th, 2007 at 11:40 am.
On to next mission.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
(St. Alphonso’s, just in time for the pancake breakfast.)
October 9th, 2007 at 11:40 am131,
Great, now we can leave that God forsaken country. On to Iran, they should be pushovers.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:40 amFact: No terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — October 9, 2007 @ 10:21 am
Big. Steaming. Pound. Of. Bull. Shit.
Remember the Anthrax attacks?
October 9th, 2007 at 11:41 amDon’t argue with idiots, it wastes your time and annoys the idiot
Comment by rocks911 — October 9, 2007 @ 11:30 am
hell, i’m no idiot and it annoys ME…
makes this place look and sound stupid too…
see yas…
October 9th, 2007 at 11:42 amYou do whatever you need to do in order to avoid having to think, or act, for yourself.
Comment by O. BiggerfootInMouth — October 9, 2007 @ 11:36 am
and I kindly again accept your defeat with not being able to provide facts for your argument.
Have a wonderful day!
October 9th, 2007 at 11:44 amSo, Bigfoot, were those all blackwatter contractors that joined McCain on his little stroll though the markket? Using your words that is what I would assume.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:54 amGeorge W. Bush has taken great pains to make sure that the actions he has taken have been legal.
No, he hasn’t. The warrantless wiretapping program was labeled by many, including at least two Republican members of Congress with a law background, as being illegal. Bush himself personally blocked an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility in the Justice Department — the office “responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct involving Department attorneys” — who repeatedly attempted to investigate whether DOJ lawyers acted improperly concerning their role in the President’s warrantless eavesdropping program. Thus, you cannot say that the program was legal because Bush himself wouldn’t let anyone talk.
Besides, the administration had the opportunity to go to Congress and get the law changed BEFORE they started the program, but declined because…ummm…something about it being unconstitutional. Yet Bush proceeded anyway.
And, the Bush administration to this day has been unable to explain why it takes so damn long to go to the FISA court for a warrant to monitor an international call, but it’s oh so easy to go to the court for a domestic call.
Previous Presidents who used the same power and authority haven’t bothered much with legal status of their actions.
Name those presidents, and name the actions they took in which they were not concerned with legalities.
Democrats say it would be better for the United States if the U.S. lost the war in Iraq.
Umm, no. The poll asked if it would be better for the world if the U.S. lost the war, not if it would be better for the U.S.
Anyway…
Wow. 900 respondents. Did you catch the rest of the poll results??? A majority of respondents listed themselves as Democrats, which probably skewed the results a bit. And apparently only one poll — from Fox News (surprise) — asking this very question.
It also reveals that 5% of Republicans said the same thing. It also reveals that more Democrats than Republicans have prayed for the Iraq War to end.
You got reference to any other poll which reveals the same thing? The first 2 pages of the Google results only linked to the Fox poll.
Besides…what wasn’t revealed was the context when considering the answer. Fox didn’t bother asking that. You know…why would the world be a better place?
Here’s a poll for you, O.B.: would you support bringing the troops home if it resulted in fewer terrorist attacks around the world?
If you say “no,” then I can spin that to say that you want more terrorist attacks.
If you say “yes” then I can say that you don’t care about Iraq falling into the hands of Iran (a popular argument of the Right). I can also say that you don’t care about the Middle East becoming destabilized. I can also say that you don’t care about democracy finding its way throughout the region.
It’s amazing how poll results can be spun to promote a certain viewpoint, isn’t it?
October 9th, 2007 at 12:29 pmThis is typical of the gang that can’t shoot straight. In their usual rush to politicize the war on terrorism, they informed the terrorist that we were tracking their communications. Now this proves what I’ve known for years, and that is these guys are idiots. I’ve said for years, that these tapes shouldn’t be released or even talked about in public or the media.
Only a fool would tell the enemy that we can track his communications. This is exactly why these idiots will never caught that killer Bin Laden. Because they are too stupid to keep their big mouths shut long enought to catch him. If there weren’t playing politics over what is a life and death struggle we would have captured or killed him years ago. If they gave me the billions of dollars they are wasting, I could take bin laden out in six months. Hey, how about sending Blackwater after him, they like killing people?
October 9th, 2007 at 12:59 pmOh, you mean when Rush was falsely and futily attacked by the Far-left Smear Machine? Is that the day you were talking about?
There’s the irony…another liberal smear that backfired.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
“Backfired” as in letting the American people what kind of troop-hating hypocrite he was?
In that context, that yeah, it backfired bigtime- and Rush was caught in the backblast.
October 9th, 2007 at 1:12 pmToday’s revelations in the Washington Post regarding the Bush administration’s September 7th leaking of an Osama Bin Laden videotape served to once again highlight the hypocritical Republican double-standard when it comes to the publication of classified national security information.
As the CIA black sites and illegal NSA domestic surveillance stories all show, the President and his amen corner are quick to call for the prosecution of those who reveal White House criminality. But when Bush and his GOP allies through political calculation or just sheer incompetence release national security secrets, that’s another matter altogether.
For the details, see:
October 9th, 2007 at 1:14 pm“Leaked Bin Laden Tape Shows GOP Double Standard.”
MARGARET @ 144
October 9th, 2007 at 1:19 pmThanks for that information.
“Yesterday, the /Washington Post/ attempted to explain away the fact that America’s nuclear command and control system broke down in an unprecedented manner by reporting that it was the result of “security failures at multiple levels.” It is now apparent that the command and control breakdown, reported as a BENT SPEAR incident to the Secretary of Defense and White House, was not the result of a command and control chain-of-command “failures” but the result of a revolt and push back by various echelons within the Air Force and intelligence agencies against a planned U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional weapons.
“The /Washington Post/ story on BENT SPEAR may have actually been an effort in damage control by the Bush administration. WMR has been informed by a knowledgeable source that one of the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles was, and may still be, unaccounted for. In that case, the nuclear reporting incident would have gone far beyond BENT SPEAR to a National Command Authority alert known as EMPTY QUIVER, with the special classification of PINNACLE.”
Comment by margaret — October 9, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
This is very frightening.
With our almost entirely worthless corporate media in charge, it is hardly surprising that our daily pablum of OJ, Brangelina, etc. doesn’t include such indigestibles as BENT SPEARs, BROKEN ARROWs and EMPTY QUIVERs.
October 9th, 2007 at 1:22 pmAs we struggle to know our domestic enemies. No, matter your political party affiliation, and setting aside your thoughts on issues. We all need to remember what it is to be an American Citizen. We need to make sure our elected representatives obey their Oath of Office and keep their Oath of Allegiance. See http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl Know whom you are voting for.
October 9th, 2007 at 3:16 pm