U.S. Iraq strategy leans on Chalabi again.
By on Oct 28th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
U.S. Iraq strategy leans on Chalabi again.
“Ahmad Chalabi, the controversial, ubiquitous Iraqi politician and one-time Bush administration favorite, has re-emerged as a central figure in the latest U.S. strategy for Iraq.” Chalabi “is an important part of the process,” said Col. Steven Boylan, Petraeus’ spokesman. “He has a lot of energy.”
UPDATE: Salon’s Glenn Greenwald is engaged in a bizarre email exchange with Boylan. Read all about it here.
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
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Guantanamo
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
Technology
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
Hitler had a lot of energy too.
October 28th, 2007 at 6:06 pmTroll Alert: Known serial trolls TCDon and exley have violated T.P. with their presence earlier today.
Please do not feed the serial trolls
Enjoy Sunday troll free.
October 28th, 2007 at 6:07 pmAahh.. Good Ol Chalabi again.
Best War Ever??
http://www.tshirtinsurgency.com
October 28th, 2007 at 6:08 pmCol. Steven Boylan, Petraeus’ spokesman, on Chalabi: “He has a lot of energy.â€
October 28th, 2007 at 6:21 pm– - Well, duuuh. As former Iraqi Oil Minister, I guess Chalabi would have a lot of energy. Was Boylan being snarky, or idiotic?
That Chalabi can sure toss the Curveballs, eh?
October 28th, 2007 at 6:22 pmIt’s a total act of desperation for the Bushies to be getting involved with Iranian spy Chalabi again.
October 28th, 2007 at 6:27 pmIsn’t it amazing how total SCUM like Chalabi – after being excoriated in what litrle press we have – can be resurrected as an Iraq savior again?
Remember the Republicans who made Clinton fire Les Aspin after a whole * 18 * troops * died in “black hawk down” ?
There no accountability, but even worse, theres no admission that anyone EVER — who is a republican can do ANYTHING wrong….
even when convicted of multpile felonies.
I cant take this bullsh^t anymore. I’m starting to really hate America. Theres no way we can ever fix this mess.
October 28th, 2007 at 6:32 pmPathetic and bizarre to drag this slimy creature out from under its rock again.
October 28th, 2007 at 6:34 pmAnd I’m not talking about Exley.
October 28th, 2007 at 6:35 pmAnd I’m not talking about Exley.
Comment by VerbalKint — October 28, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
It is hard to tell the difference…
October 28th, 2007 at 6:37 pmAchmed Chalabi is a phenomenally intelligen man–Ph.D. in Mathematics! from the University of Chicago–and can play these guys like flutes.
October 28th, 2007 at 6:37 pmI’m sure he says to himself, “I’m exposed as an agent for the Iranian government and all my information has turned out to be lies. But I’m going to go into that meeting and have them apologies to me, and I’m going to walk out of there with a couple million dollars.”
“Really, it’s almost too easy.”
“intelligent” and ‘apologize.’
October 28th, 2007 at 6:39 pmI just saw his ugly face on the national news not two minutes ago.
October 28th, 2007 at 6:40 pmHe was exposed as an opportunist; then his offices were raided as he fell even further; now he is a diplomat again, sitting there with Petraeus. Why is this man in place?
Petraeus by the way uttered a most inane and idiotic comment regarding the triangle of death in Iraq – he now calls it the circle of life.
Chalabi rerun? How many times can one country get duped and keep bending over to be duped again?
October 28th, 2007 at 6:45 pmI’m an engineer, not a historian, but can’t the mess in Iraq be traced back to us grooming Saddam Hussein and putting him in power ? (and before that, us deposing and putting in power various other Iraqis?)?????
Is Chabli a graduate of School of the Americas ?
And on the email exchange – what a putz. You’d think anyone would realize how easy it is to trace emails. Even at that, there are 2 possibilities – a) the good Col. Sanders, like many good neocons, doesn’t even think it worthwhile to be civil to those who disagree (and as such is a major washout as a spokesman) -or- b) someone has hacked into the military computer network in Iraq. Which is more embarassing ?????
October 28th, 2007 at 7:06 pmWow….I have not even posted on this thread and Zooey and Verbalkint STILL can’t help but talk about me…They truly are infatuated with me, aren’t they?
Well, since Zooey and Verbalkint seem so interested in me, I will weigh in….It is disinegenuous of ThinkProgress to attempt to link Chalabi and the INC exclusively to the Bush administration and the Republican Party.
It was in fact the Clinton administration who first embraced Chalabi and INC as the face of the opposition to Saddam Hussein. Indeed, it was Clinton whoo signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which was unanimously passed by the U.S. Senate and the overwhelmingly passed by the U.S. House of Representatives.
Indeed, even the far-left Web site Antiwar.com acknowledges this fact:
“If Durbin is trying to stick Chalabi on the Republicans, then perhaps he doesn’t remember his own vote in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act, passed with the total support of the Clinton administration in 1998. Although Chalabi was somewhat halfheartedly backed by Bush I, this act of Congress officially put Chalabi and the INC on the U.S. dole and funneled more than $100 million into his coffers until he was cut off in 2004. It was during the first years of the Clinton administration, when the CIA was under the thumb of über-neocon James R. Woolsey, that Chalabi’s group really came into its own as a Washington-based lobbyist.
The Iraqi National Congress (INC) originated as a project of the Rendon Group – a public relations firm founded by former Democratic National Committee executive John Rendon…”
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7961
October 28th, 2007 at 7:07 pmMany trolls here will blurt out “Clinton did it!”, but Exley really goes the extra mile in trying to deliver that tired old chestnut in as garrulous and bombastic a manner as possible. Well done, Exley.
October 28th, 2007 at 7:12 pmTROLL WARNING: exley is a known serial troll
October 28th, 2007 at 7:13 pmDo not feed the known serial trolls!
October 28th, 2007 at 7:14 pmThank you, TPM…But I cannot claim the credit. As you can see, it is the left-wing Web site Antiwar.com that points out that it was the Clinton administration who first embraced Chalabi….
October 28th, 2007 at 7:14 pmTROLL WARNING: exley is a known serial troll!
October 28th, 2007 at 7:16 pmExley sez:
Yes, but it’s you who are using that fact to attempt to defend the administration, as well as condemn TP for something they have not done. Again, well done.
October 28th, 2007 at 7:16 pmThat exchange between Greenwald and Boylan is fascinating. Boylan is creeeeepy.
October 28th, 2007 at 7:16 pmPlease do not feed the troll!
October 28th, 2007 at 7:17 pmTPM, I am just setting the historical record straight. A lot of folks here seem blissfully unaware of U.S. history.
October 28th, 2007 at 7:18 pmgummitch sez:
I especially like this snippet from Boylan:
If I had handed in that sentence to my grade-school English teacher, I would have had to stay after school.
October 28th, 2007 at 7:19 pm“TPM, I am just setting the historical record straight. A lot of folks here seem blissfully unaware of U.S. history”
Please ignore this troll and enoy your Sunday evening troll free.
Peace
October 28th, 2007 at 7:22 pmOh, I meant to say “Clinton did it” first, am I too late?
October 28th, 2007 at 7:29 pm#29, Shayne,
Yes.
October 28th, 2007 at 7:30 pmDamn, I missed it.
October 28th, 2007 at 7:33 pmWarning, too much Exlax turns your brain to shit and make your fingers type total crap. Be careful to keep your contact with this product to a minimum.
October 28th, 2007 at 7:34 pmSomebody around here sounds like a traitor to the US of A. Does anybody else smell treason besides me?
October 28th, 2007 at 7:36 pmIt was Bush seniors presidential finding, Exley, that got Rendon hired to help topple Saddam. And BTW, Raimondo, or his site, is not far-left as he seems to be an old school conservative libertarian.
Kinda Like Ron Paul. Frankly, I dont think its possible to lable Rendon as democratic or republican.
As for this email from Boylan it reeks of being spoofed.
October 28th, 2007 at 7:36 pmWell Xisithrus, since when did facts and the truth ever stand in the way of a troll? That would be never.
October 28th, 2007 at 7:38 pmlmjp1@ 34
I am happy to see you guys are catching on, we will defeat the trolls and once again enjoy free speach and civil discource.
Peace
October 28th, 2007 at 7:38 pmXisthrus,
None of that changes the fact that it was Clinton who first embraced Chalabi as the face of the opposition to Saddam Hussein and that Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support by Congress.
October 28th, 2007 at 7:41 pmWARNING: exley is a known serial troll!
Do not feed the troll.
Peace
October 28th, 2007 at 7:44 pmXisithrus sez:
Actually, that is exactly what Boylan is now claiming, however, this claim would seem to be questionable given the following (from the article):
Additionally, Glenn himself has good reason to believe the email is authentic, as this passage from the article shows:
Rather reminds me of a certain troll we are periodically afflicted with here, who has claimed on more than one occasion that particularly heinous postings from him were the products of namejackers, rather than the genuine article. However, his characteristic writing style, present in both genuine and “counterfeit” posts, puts the lie to that assertion. I’ve informed this particular troll numerous times that writing styles are like fingerprints, enabling us to recognize his posts regardless of the names attached (or not attached) to them. It would seem as if Glenn Greenwald is also aware of this.
October 28th, 2007 at 7:48 pmWarning: TCDon is a known serial troll!
Please do not feed the known serial trolls.
Peace
October 28th, 2007 at 7:50 pmFree speach and civil discource are my goals.
October 28th, 2007 at 7:51 pmTrolls are free to speak.
We are free to ignore said trolls.
October 28th, 2007 at 7:58 pmWarning: TCDon is a well known serial troll!
Do not feed the well known serial troll.
Trolls do not believe in free speach.
Peace
October 28th, 2007 at 8:00 pmTCDon sez:
First of all, TCDon, no one is “silencing” you. You’re free to spout your inane blather here, and troll buster is free to encourage people to ignore you.
Second, if you’re really that concerned with “Stalinist” blogs “silencing” dissenters, your concern would be better spent over at Red State, where I was censored and banned mere minutes after making a post that did not conform to the idiotic mouthbreating neocon apologist groupthink that is mandatory on that site.
Until Red State and other right-wing echo chambers stop deleting my posts and banning me after a single dissenting post, you need to STFU about being “silenced” here.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:01 pm“We are free to ignore said trolls.”
Given your reprehensible comment about the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq yesterday, you would be wise to follow your own advice.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:01 pmExley,
I can certainly agree that the underlyings of Chalabi’s power and influence can be traced back to the help of Clinton and some of the Democrats. We can actually go back much further than that with his well-known connections to fellow neoconservatives who are/were currently in this Administration as well. All that is neither here nor there, however, because that does not excuse this current Administration for listening intently to this known liar’s so-called “intelligence” such as his brother “Curveball.” You remember Curveball, right? Here, since you like using Antiwar as your source, let me give you another:
http://antiwar.com/blog/?p=1977
The “Clinton did it too” argument is fun to use, but it runs out of steam real quick when we remember who exactly it was who took us to war in the first place based much on this known liar and his Exile Group’s fibs. All of the sudden we have to remember quite vividly that it was indeed Bush who left bin Laden in Tora Bora to go after a hapless dictator that had nothing to do with 9/11 and al Qaeda, but combined with the supposed threat of WMDs this was exactly the rationale used to sell the invasion.
Funny, I can’t recall Clinton doing that. Can you?
October 28th, 2007 at 8:02 pmPeople, we had eight troll free hours because we did not feed the trolls. Starve a troll and save the blog.
Peace
October 28th, 2007 at 8:04 pmGiven your reprehensible comment about the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq yesterday, you would be wise to follow your own advice.
Comment by Exley — October 28, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
No one is buying your shit. Dismissed.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:05 pmRUMSFELD & CHENEY TOOK THE BONE-HEADED INITIATIVE TO FLY IN CHALABI ON THEIR OWN, AND IN SO DOING, DESTROYED US CREDIBILITY WITHIN IRAQ.
HERE IS A POLICY EXPERT WHO FORMULATED POLICY FOR COLIN POWELL. HIS ADVICE WAS
A. TO KEEP THE POLICE AND MILITARY IN PLACE TO ENSURE LAW AND ORDER.
B. TO ALLOW THE IRAQIS TO DETERMINE THEIR OWN FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND ELECT THEIR OWN LEADERS WITH NO OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE.
C. TO BRING IN THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FOREIGN PARTNERS TO SHARE IN THE JOB OF SECURING THE COUNTRY, AND IN SO DOING, TO SHARE IN THE “SPOILS OF WAR.â€
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/interviews/haass.html
The War in Iraq is about “SUCCESSFUL FAILURE.â€
In the words on Chalabi: “We are heroes in error.â€
Dead soldiers and civilians are of virtually no consequence to Rumsfeld and the rest of the criminals in charge. Picture a chessboard, and we are all merely pawns.
THE FAILURE IN IRAQ IS THE DIRECT RESULT OF THE PERSONAL HUBRIS AND GREED OF RUMSFELD, CHENEY AND BUSH ON BEHALF OF THEIR GLOBALIST OVERLORDS.
Your leadership does not represent your interests.
IMPEACH.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:09 pmTPM,
I actually agree with you. ThinkProgress is actually pretty good about allowing people of different opinions post here. People who are afraid of differing opinions — such as “Troll Buster” (cute name) — are certainly free to try and discourage discourse. Fortunately, there are enough mature liberals (or “progressives”) here who are willing to listen to other viewpoints and enjoy a good debate.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:10 pmI was told directly by someone with intimate knowledge that the State Department had learned that Rumsfeld planned to FOMENT CHAOS in Iraq from the outset…and that literally all of the apparent failures in Iraq were part of Rumsfeld’s goal prior to the invasion of Iraq. If ETERNAL OCCUPATION and PERMANENT BASES are your ultimate goal, this strategy makes sense – as peace and stability would eliminate the justification for US boots on the ground.
The recent revelation that Rumsfeld actually threatened to fire any General who continued to work on the planning for the aftermath of the invasion (“The future Of Iraq Projectâ€) makes total sense when you consider that the actual goal of Donald Rumsfeld was to “AVOID WINNING.â€
THE FUTURE OF IRAQ PROJECT:
Washington, DC, September 1, 2006 – The National Security Archive is today posting State Department documents from 2002 tracing the inception of the “Future of Iraq Project,” alongside the final, mammoth 13-volume study, previously obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. “The Future of Iraq Project” was one of the most comprehensive U.S. government planning efforts for raising that country out of the ashes of combat and establishing a functioning democracy. The new materials complement previous postings on the Archive’s site relating to the United States’ complex relationship with Iraq during the years leading up to the 2003 invasion:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB198/index.htm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Future_of_Iraq_Project
RUMSFELD HAD THIS ADVICE, AND NOT ONLY CHOSE TO IGNORE IT, BUT THREATENED TO FIRE ANYONE WHO CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT IN THE LEAD UP THE WAR.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_09/009469.php
Our troops, and the citizens of Iraq, are dying needlessly as the direct result of a dishonest strategy, intentionally designed to result in quagmire. They got the best advice the State Department had to offer, then intentionally chose to do EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE in order to guarantee failure, which in their view, meant success.
The Rumsfeld / Bush / Cheney plan from the outset, contrary to ALL LOGIC, was to both allow for the complete destruction of this civil society AND to stay there with troops in place forever.
IMPEACHABLE LIES REVEALED:
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s newly-issued chapters showed that top Administration officials, including the President, Vice President, then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, repeatedly misrepresented intelligence community findings, to support the Iraq invasion with lies that Iraq was tied to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, and had advanced WMD programs.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:11 pmCheney & Chalabi
“HEROES IN ERROR”
Ahmad Chalabi and his London-based exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, for years provided a conduit for Iraqi defectors who were debriefed by US intelligence agents. But many American officials now blame Mr Chalabi for providing intelligence that turned out to be false or wild exaggerations about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
Mr Chalabi, by far the most effective anti-Saddam lobbyist in Washington, shrugged off charges that he had deliberately misled US intelligence. “We are heroes in error,” he told the Telegraph in Baghdad.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/19/wirq19.xml
CHENEY & CHALIBI:
Standing of Former Key U.S. Ally in Iraq Falls to New Low
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 21, 2004; Page A20
A year ago, as U.S. troops swept toward Baghdad, Ahmed Chalabi and about 400 hastily assembled fighters were secretly airlifted into southern Iraq to rally other Iraqis and begin a march toward Baghdad to help topple Saddam Hussein, an operation that won the concurrence of U.S. officials all the way up to Vice President Cheney’s office. Chalabi had predicted that he would become Iraq’s Spartacus, cutting a wide swath through Iraq and mobilizing vast numbers behind him, according to U.S. officials.
“It was the moment of truth for Chalabi, and it was literally a moment. It was over almost the minute it happened,” said a senior U.S. official who worked with Chalabi and served in the U.S.-led coalition in Baghdad. “Compared to [Charles] de Gaulle’s march to Paris [to liberate France], Chalabi’s march to Baghdad was a stone that went into the water without a splash.”
“The reality is that he was among a wide variety of Iraqi figures who made the case to an array of American officials over a period of time for the liberation of the Iraqi people.”
Yet no Iraqi leader has had more to do with the U.S. intervention in Iraq than Chalabi, from charming Congress into authorizing almost $100 million to back his fledgling Iraqi National Congress in the late 1990s and convincing Washington about Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction in 2002 to pressing for war last year, say both his supporters and critics.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43775-2004May20.html
Bush & Chalibi
“HEROES IN ERROR”
Interview of the President by TVP, Poland
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 29, 2003
Interview of the President by TVP, Poland
The Library
Q. But, still, those countries who didn’t support the Iraqi Freedom operation use the same argument, weapons of mass destruction haven’t been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war?
THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them. “
October 28th, 2007 at 8:12 pmWarning: Two well known serial trolls are violating this post with their presence!
Do not feed the trolls.
Peace
October 28th, 2007 at 8:15 pmKeep backpedaling, Zooey.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:17 pmWarning: exley and TCDon are both well known serial trolls!
Do not feed the trolls.
Peace
October 28th, 2007 at 8:19 pmWe get it, troll buster.
Your repeated admonitions are beginning to spam the thread.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:20 pmI hope he has no family because all that bottled up hate and anger could be dangerous.
Comment by lmjp1 — October 28, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
Probably not. Just picture an impotent 40 year old virgin. *yawn*
October 28th, 2007 at 8:25 pmTripMaster Monkey
If you check TP since noon I have managed to keep the trolls contained and at the same time read a couple hundred pages of Closing Time.
What I was hoping to do is show fellow progessives that they can enjoy this site troll free if they just resist the temptation to respond to the garbage the trolls are dumping here by the ton.
I apologise if I have offended anyone besides the trolls. I am fed up with having them hijack every thread on this site.
Peace
October 28th, 2007 at 8:28 pmComment by Exley — October 28, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
Apparently there is at least one troll who would disagree with you.
I just found out that one or more of my comments had been reported as abuse. Many of you know me around here under my old username “WC.” I decided to change it when the new registration system came online. I really can’t pinpoint which comment(s) were judged abuse, but I’d say the odds are that someone just didn’t like what I had to say. Other than occasionally calling someone a moron or idiot, or ignorant or crazy, or using the F word (or the insinuation of the word, as the comment filters have become quite adept at catching any resemblance of the word, special characters included or not), I cannot recall ever seriously threatening anyone with anything other than opinion or fact.
Anyway, the way I found out about this was really an accident. I noticed that any prior posts were only appearing on the site when I was signed into the comments section. I sent the administrators a note asking for assistance, and that is when I was told that someone reported my comments. Apparently the administrators disagreed with the effort to get me banned, as I was assured the problem posting would be corrected.
Most of you are probably like me and have selected the option to remember your signon information; it may behoove you to log out of the site every now and then, and check and see if your comments are still appearing.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:33 pmMisterOpus1
I appreciate your honesty when you write, “I can certainly agree that the underlyings of Chalabi’s power and influence can be traced back to the help of Clinton and some of the Democrats.”
I am certainly not arguing that Clinton’s embrace of Chalabi exonerates the subsequent errors of the Bush administration. What I am saying, however, is that the flaws in America’s Iraq policy extend back beyond Jan. 20, 2001.
As for this statement:
“All of the sudden we have to remember quite vividly that it was indeed Bush who left bin Laden in Tora Bora to go after a hapless dictator that had nothing to do with 9/11…”
I yield to no one in my disappointment and frustration that we did not catch Bin Laden in Afghanistan in later 2001 after 9/11. But also frustrating the Clinton administrations failure to do next to nothing to get Bin Laden in the 1990s when it was well known what a threat he posed to the United States and after Al Qaeda launched numerous attacks against US interests, including the USS Cole and embassy bombings.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:36 pmOh, and now that I apparently am able to comment again, I do not have a “bad eye.” I wanted a username that was unique, and that is a nickname my grandmother used to call me when I was young. Never thought to ask her why she picked that one.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:37 pmComment by Bad Eye — October 28, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
Hey WC, how’s it going? I haven’t been around much myself, but I have a feeling the flaccid trolls have been flagging regulars (or normals) as abusive. I’m hoping the TP admin will catch on to this oh-so-clever ruse.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:39 pm“Never thought to ask her why she picked that one.”
Really????
October 28th, 2007 at 8:41 pm“I apologise if I have offended anyone ”
No apologies necessary, TB.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:42 pmComment by Exley — October 28, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
As has been pointed out, the Clinton administration did not get conclusive evidence that al Qaeda was responsible for the Cole bombing. That conclusion came after Bush was inaugurated.
However, had Clinton launched a military attack somewhere in the world to capture bin Laden, it would have been derided by the Right as an effort to get Gore elected.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:42 pmIgnore the troll.
Peace
October 28th, 2007 at 8:44 pmPeople who are afraid of differing opinions — such as,,,Comment by Exley
Yeah, like Red State.org or Michelle the savage beast Malkin.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:45 pmBad Eye,
Let’s assume that is true….It does not excuse the rather weak one-time cruise missile strike at Bin Laden’s Afghanistan camp made in response to the embassy bombings. And while there is no doubt some people would have accused Clinton of wagging the dog if he had responded militarily to the Cole attack, it is equally doubtless that the vast majority of Americans — Republican, Democrat, and independent — would have supported such military action.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:47 pmLeft Coast Mike,
That is why I like ThinkProgress….It is not an echo chamber.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:48 pmNo, we here are what is know as free thinkers…not mindless twits the follow the Chimp in Chief, Rush Limp Dick or any of the other wingnuts on the right.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:50 pmI bet that they hate us because we are not living with all kinds of repressed sexual desires.
Comment by lmjp1 — October 28, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
Well, yeah. :D
October 28th, 2007 at 8:57 pm#78 Left Coast Mike,
The ThinkProgress comment section is an interesting bazaar of political observers — You have everything from the crazy conspiracy theorists to the immature name-callers who never post anything of substance to the reasonable, well-informed liberals who are interested in hearing and debating differing points of view. It is quite entertaining to see it all in play.
October 28th, 2007 at 8:58 pmFortunately, there are enough mature liberals (or “progressivesâ€) here who are willing to listen to other viewpoints and enjoy a good debate.
Comment by Exley — October 28, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
unfortunately, Exley has presented nothing resembling good debate. “Clinton did it” is no excuse for mass murder and the rape of the US taxpayer by Bushco. I realize it’s really all the right has is the imagined failings of the one president that did catch his terrorists, who are still in prison, but that’s no excuse for such weak reasonng and foolish bullshit. It’s precisely the same line being used on Iran, and just another excuse for the right to kill more American soldiers in the pursuit of arms and oil profits. The 24%ers have no place left to stand except in a pile of their own feces,; it’s no wonder that their “arguments” stink to high heaven.
October 28th, 2007 at 9:03 pmNone of that changes the fact that it was Clinton who first embraced Chalabi as the face of the opposition to Saddam Hussein -Exley
I would have to disagree as Chalabi lobbied [embraced] a Republican led congress before Clinton signed the act, Exley.
October 28th, 2007 at 9:14 pmChalabi has a criminal record for illegal activity while he was the head of a Jordanian bank in the 1980s. He fled to London to avoid his prison sentence. From London, he worked with Bush officials to hype the war against Iraq in 2002 and 2003. The US media — Judith Miller and others — broadcast his lies and sold the public on the invasion on March 19, 2003. Right after the US invasion, Chalabi was flown into Baghdad on an American plane, after being away from Iraq since the late 1950s.
This is the man Bush / Cheney hoped to install as the leader of Iraq. Now in 2007, with Iraq blown up to total hell, ///Chalabiis back in the news? Can we even hope for a trace of sanity from the Bush Warmongers?
October 28th, 2007 at 9:15 pmFortunately, there are enough mature liberals (or “progressivesâ€) here who are willing to listen to other viewpoints and enjoy a good debate.
Comment by Exley
Chalabi, I think, could do little to stabilise the region today. He lost badly in the elections as I recall.
October 28th, 2007 at 9:19 pmXisithrus, (#85)
That’s a fair point. But it must be remembered that the Iraq Libertation Act passed the U.S. Senate unanimously and the House by a vote that included a vast majority of Democratic members — Yea-Nay Vote: 360 – 38.
Plus, Clinton could have vetoed if he wanted to.
October 28th, 2007 at 9:21 pmXisithrus (#87),
I agree that Chalabi probably has very little credibility among the Iraqi people. But if he can offer even the slightest help in bringing about a reconciliation in the Iraqi national government, it seems worth it to bring him in, even in a limited role.
October 28th, 2007 at 9:23 pmNo one is buying your shit. Dismissed.
Comment by Zooey — October 28, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
CORRECTION:
Nobody even wants it for free. Exley will be leaving soon to take a remedial reading comprehension class. Could take years. Toodles to him, adios, hit the road, don’t let the door hit him in the ass on his way out.
October 28th, 2007 at 9:39 pmBut if he can offer even the slightest help in bringing about a reconciliation in the Iraqi national government, it seems worth it to bring him in, even in a limited role. Comment by Exley.
The guy helped to start this quagmire that did not bring about parades of roses, but is to now head the health ministry..thats just odd..he has already been given the post. There has just been so many blunders in the ‘freedom operation’ …. I hope he does, but I have to admit, I just dont see Chalabi being a cohesive force.
October 28th, 2007 at 9:42 pmam confused by the trolls reasoning.
Comment by lmjp1 — October 28, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
Good one Imjp1, “trolls reasoning”, you crack me up kid.
October 28th, 2007 at 9:43 pmI have a question, if this site so dangerous why is it that we only get illiterate third rate cut and paste trolls?
Comment by lmjp1 — October 28, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
The Republican party doesn’t have any other kind. All the intellectuals are Democrats, duh!
October 28th, 2007 at 9:52 pmXisithrus,
“I hope he does, but I have to admit, I just dont see Chalabi being a cohesive force.”
We’ll have to wait and see, I suppose. Things have improved in Iraq dramatically military-wise in the last few months, with the level of violence dropping dramatically. The key now is to take advantage of those military gains and work towards a more effective Iraqi national government. Hopefully, Chalabi can offer some help there.
October 28th, 2007 at 9:53 pmYeah, me too – when I first wake up!
Are these people …. they’re JUST STUPID, aren’t they? Just plain downright stupid.
October 28th, 2007 at 10:03 pmExley might be right, take help where you can get it.
October 28th, 2007 at 10:04 pmwordsmith, what?
October 28th, 2007 at 10:05 pmImjp1, yeah, your right, you have a comics side.
October 28th, 2007 at 10:10 pmExley might be right, take help where you can get it.
Comment by brandy — October 28, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
Chalabi is a f_ck up and a criminal. He’s no help — he’s a route to more criminal enabling.
October 28th, 2007 at 10:10 pmExley hasn’t taken his flaccid ass to a recruitment center yet?
-GSD
October 28th, 2007 at 10:10 pmscuse me, whats his criminal background?
October 28th, 2007 at 10:11 pmGSD that was really good, shows your position in life
October 28th, 2007 at 10:12 pm“take help where you can get it.”
Absolutely, Brandy. If Chalabi can help bring about the restoration of electric and medical services to more areas of Iraq — especially those that until recently were in the grips of Al Qaeda — it will go a long way to fostering political reconciliation in Iraq…And that, in turn, can ultimately lead to a stable Iraq and the beginning of the downsizing of the U.S. military presence there.
October 28th, 2007 at 10:16 pmI agree
October 28th, 2007 at 10:23 pmIs Brandy a concern troll?
October 28th, 2007 at 10:24 pmOk, lets get this straight, whats a troll?
October 28th, 2007 at 10:25 pmIs Brandy a concern troll?
Comment by troll buster — October 28, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
Yes.
October 28th, 2007 at 10:26 pmCompassion? progressive? ok, i have found some hate filled people.
October 28th, 2007 at 10:27 pmIs Brandy a concern troll?
Yes.
Comment by Zooey —
Thank you
October 28th, 2007 at 10:27 pmHardly an objective comment, I went to the website, hatespeach all the way.
October 28th, 2007 at 10:29 pmIts what I found out, thanks
October 28th, 2007 at 10:30 pmAnd folks we have a new batter up, Brandy the new wonder troll just and bad as the old troll. Kind of sounds like michael.
October 28th, 2007 at 10:32 pmComment by Exley — October 28, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
“Some” people? How about Bush and his entire Republican field of supporters, including those in Congress? Remember, the Cole was attacked less than a month before election day.
Again, I remind you that we did not have clear evidence of bin Laden’s involvement during the final days of the Clinton presidency. As Bush attacked Iraq because they “might” attack us sometime in the future, Clinton would have attacked bin Laden because he “might” have been involved in the Cole bombing.
October 28th, 2007 at 10:34 pmShayne and what have you contributed but crying bs.
October 28th, 2007 at 10:35 pmlmjp1s and yeah. your great, looked over your posts, or lack of posts.
October 28th, 2007 at 10:36 pmCompassion? progressive? ok, i have found some hate filled people.
Comment by brandy — October 28, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
OK…let’s get this straight. Define “hate” as it relates to comments on this thread.
October 28th, 2007 at 10:37 pmYou
October 28th, 2007 at 10:37 pmOne of the girls wanted to say something bout your stuupid name, sound apporatate but hey, i cant say anything about your handicap.
October 28th, 2007 at 10:42 pmk, found out spelling means a lot to specal needs kids. sorry
October 28th, 2007 at 10:43 pmMy place is troll free as well. :)
October 28th, 2007 at 10:46 pmBrandy is robroy in disguise.
October 28th, 2007 at 10:47 pm#120,
#120 Bad Eye (Formerly WC):
Quite frankly, everybody knew as soon as it happened that the Cole attack was Bin Laden’s handiwork. But leaving aside the Cole atack and turning to the embassy bombings — I think you are overstating it when you argue that all GOPers would have accused Clinton of attacking Bin Laden simply to help Gore’s election chances. When Clinton launched the one-time cruise missile strikes against the Bin Laden camp and the Sudan in 1998, there were admittedly a few conservatives who floated the “wagging the dog” theory, but the overwhelming majority of Republicans in Congress supported him.
October 28th, 2007 at 10:48 pmZooey, oh live with the pain
October 28th, 2007 at 10:49 pmlmjp1 kinda hard to live with the pain isnt it
Exley in comment #67:
I’m glad we agree that there were screw ups with the bin Laden issue regarding Tora Bora. I’ll also agree that the Clinton Administration had errors on their part, as the 9/11 Commission Report depicts that quite well.
Some of the issues you bring up, however, seem to imply that Clinton did nothing in response. I disagree:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm
Pretty old news really. And as others have pointed out, how could you expect Clinton to strike anyone when neither the FBI nor the CIA, our two top intelligence agencies could not even confirm it was al Qaeda?:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/13/giuliani-cole/
It was not truly confirmed who attacked us until Bush was in office. You cannot possibly expect anyone to believe we should be attacking someone without confirmation of evidence on the culprit, do you?
Oh wait, I guess Bush has that one down pretty good, doesn’t he?
October 28th, 2007 at 10:50 pmMisterOpus1
October 28th, 2007 at 10:52 pmbe interested in learing how you’d have done it better. We need a few more people with military smarts. Oh what are your creds?
Let’s not forget that the Republicans spent the entirety of the 90’s, the period they say that Bin Laden declared war on America, they spent the entire 90’s declaring war on Bill Clinton’s penis.
You won’t find any Giuliani, Romney or McCain speeches declaring the imminent threat posed by Al Qeda.
Nope, they were busy claiming that Bill Clinton was grabbing too much governmental power and they were busy trying to stymie anti-terrorist legislation after Oklahoma City.
-GSD
October 28th, 2007 at 10:54 pmDr. Matt
October 28th, 2007 at 10:55 pmslow down, dont run off at the mouth, put your prroof up, not from the blog, and get the taste outta ur mouth.
lmjp1
poor lmjp1, doesnt have a clue, get out of your wheel chair, you can walk, YOU CAN WALK,
poor fool.
October 28th, 2007 at 10:57 pmBrandy, I guess we know your caliber. Making fun of those unfortunates in wheelchairs.
-GSD
October 28th, 2007 at 10:59 pmGSD right, I have one because i was stupid and wasnt wearing a seatbelt, and i love you because you have to support and idiot.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:01 pmMisterOpus1,
I did not say that Clinton did nothing against Bin Laden…I specifically said he did “next to nothing.” That is merely a hyperbolic way of saying that Clinton obviously did not do enough to get Bin Laden. Yes, he did take some steps, but they failed and were not enough. Even Clinton admitted when he said in response to the question of whether he did enough to get Bin Laden, “No, because we didn’t get him.”
Now, I am not on of those who blames Clinton for 9/11 because he did not get Bin Laden in the 1990s. That would be silly and unfair to Clinton. This nation as a whole was not sufficiently focused on the threat of Al Qaeda in the 1990s and before 9/11. I don’t recall either George W. Bush or Al Gore mentioning Al Qaeda or OBL during the 2000 election.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:01 pmbrandy,
I’m sorry, but you’re a little incoherent. What are you asking exactly? Are you asking what I would have done better with Clinton or with this current Administration?
And I’m also curious as to why I need “military smarts” to form a rational conclusion with supporting evidence on matters. What exactly is “military smarts”, by the way?
October 28th, 2007 at 11:03 pmBrandy,
October 28th, 2007 at 11:04 pmCriminal problem is Chalabi is wanted in Jordan for $100 million bank fraud. Before invasion he said he was extremely popular in Iraq. Someone responded that he must have been an extremely popular eight year old because that was the last time he was in Iraq. So extremely popular that he got less than 1% in the election. Remember those dozen people around the pulling down of Saddam’s statue? Chalibi’s men. Know of Curveball? Fed by Chalibi. Sometimes CIA says he is an Iranian agent. Sometimes CIA says he is glorious Iraqi. I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him. White House will use anyone to suit their purposes. Their purpose is to control the area. The main reason for this is oil.
Keith
October 28th, 2007 at 11:07 pmSo defeat is the better option?
Exley,
I believe we are coming closer to our agreeing on our points of contention. But I will point out that it’s a little semantic of you to say “next to nothing” as if that doesn’t imply “nothing.” I think most would interpret that as doing very little to nothing, when the record clearly shows otherwise. Now you can argue whether or not his actions were appropriate and strong enough, to which I might agree that more should have been done. But to say that he did “next to nothing” is going a bit far, IMO.
Out of curiosity, what in your opinion should Clinton have done differently?
October 28th, 2007 at 11:07 pmlmjp1, So you dont answer yourself? Thats cool.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:07 pm#135 Dr. Matt:
You are incorrect:
Here is an excerpt of Speaker Newt Gingrich on “CNN†on August 28, 1998 following the attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan:
ALLEN: We are interrupting that story because we have now on the phone with us Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Speaker Gingrich, your reaction to the U.S. attacks today on Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network.
REP. NEWT GINGRICH (R), HOUSE SPEAKER: Well, I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack American embassies and do nothing. And I think we have to recognize that we are now committed to engaging this organization and breaking it apart and doing whatever we have to to suppress it, because we cannot afford to have people who think that they can kill Americans without any consequence. So this was the right thing to do.
We have not yet gotten assessments of the damage, but I hope that it’s been very decisive. And I think it’s very important that we send a signal to countries like Sudan and Afghanistan that if you house a terrorist, you become a target. And if you want to get rid of the target, you’ve got to get rid of the terrorist.
I think based on what I know, it was the right thing to do at the right time. And I think that it — I’ve been involved in briefings for the last two weeks, and I think it’s been done in a methodical, professional way. And I strongly support the United States government having acted that way.â€
October 28th, 2007 at 11:08 pm#135 More for you, Dr. Matt:
Newsday, August 21, 1998:
Washington – Congressional leaders strongly supported President Bill Clinton’s decision to strike targets in Sudan and Afghanistan yesterday, although one Republican senator raised questions about the timing and the motive of the attack.
Some of Clinton’s most consistent critics endorsed the decision to retaliate for the Aug. 7 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 200 people, including 12 Americans.
House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.Ca.), who had been alerted by the White House before the attack, praised the operation.
“I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow terrorist groups to attack embassies and do nothing,†Gingrich said.
Lott called the action “appropriate and just.â€
Helms struck a rare bipartisan chord: “Sooner or later, terrorists will realize that America’s differences end at the water’s edge and that the United States political leadership always has, and always will, stand united in the face of international terrorism.â€
Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who has been aggressively investigating Clinton’s campaign-funding practices, took the opposite view. “I take the action for what it was – to stop the terrorists and to make them pay for what they did,†Burton said. “And that was the right thing to do. That’s coming from one of the president’s severest critics.â€
———
As I said, the myth of widespread charges by the GOP leadership of “wag the dog†after the August 1998 strike against Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan are just that…a myth
October 28th, 2007 at 11:11 pmAlpha Gamma Delta
October 28th, 2007 at 11:11 pmlmjp1, your loving what? that your stupid or your stupid?
October 28th, 2007 at 11:13 pmSo defeat is the better option?
Comment by brandy — October 28, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
That is a total non-sequitor. Iraq and Iran had nothing to do with 9/11. Al Qaeda was strongly aided by Reagan, CIA, Bush, and Bush. Saddam was strongly aided by them. Bush II did not defeat bin Laden. He gave him an easy exit to Pakistan and left him alone for six years while he went after the oil in Iraq. Now he wants the oil in Iran.
It is Bush that is losing the war against terrorism—not me.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:14 pmOnly if you force him.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:16 pmI dont think i made that comment?
October 28th, 2007 at 11:17 pmBush II gave bin Laden his greatest dream—the US gets bogged down in a costly debilitating war in Iraq. Costing us $2 Trillion that we do not have, providing a tremendous recruiting tool and training ground for al Qaeda, making us less secure (according to sixteen intelligence agencies of the US), and breaking our Army, Marines, Reserves, and National Guard.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:19 pmKeith , that was stupid, slective. bs.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:20 pmlmjp1, have a thought, dont base it on your need for drugs.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:21 pmDidn’t exactly think you would agree. Name something I said that is false. The topic is supposed to be Chalabi, btw.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:22 pmWill the mainstream corporate media cover the story that Gen. Petraus is looking to Ahmad Chalabi as “a new central figure in the future strategy of Iraq.” Considering Chalabi’s criminal record, his lies to support the US invasion in 2003, and his betrayal of the US by dealing with Iran — this plan is a act of treason.
Who will call for Gen. Petraeus’ resignation? Where is the outrage?
October 28th, 2007 at 11:23 pmAm I talking to robroy pretending to be a little girl in a wheelchair?
October 28th, 2007 at 11:23 pm#146 MisterOpus1,
While I am hardly a military expert, I would think a more sustained bombing/cruise missile campaign against Bin Laden’s terrorist camps would have been a more appropriate and effective response to the Al Qaeda threat. Commando strikes were also an option.
Here is what Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA’s “Bin Laden Unit” during the Clinton administration (and a FIERCE critic of the Iraq War) said about the Clinton administrations efforts to get Bin Laden in the 1990s (This is from an interview with CBS News in September 2006):
CBS NEWS: Let’s talk about what President Clinton had to say on Fox yesterday. He basically laid blame at the feet of the CIA and the FBI for not being able to certify or verify that Osama bin Laden was responsible for a number of different attacks. Does that ring true to you?”
SCHEUER: “No, sir, I don’t think so. The president seems to be able, the former president seems to be able to deny facts with impugnity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That’s the bottom line. And every time he says what he said to Chris Wallace on Fox, he defames the CIA especially, and the men and women who risk their lives to give his administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden.”
CBS NEWS: “All right, is the Bush administration any less responsible for not finishing the job in Tora Bora?”
SCHEUER: “Oh, I think there’s plenty of blame to go around, sir, but the fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration had one chance that they botched, and the Clinton Administration had eight to ten chances that they refused to try…”
October 28th, 2007 at 11:24 pmKeith
October 28th, 2007 at 11:25 pmname one thing that was true?
Keith
You have a problem?
Comment by Keith — October 28, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
Keith, see the problem with giving a reasoned response to a troll.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:26 pmShayne, and your claim to faime?
October 28th, 2007 at 11:26 pmthats fame
October 28th, 2007 at 11:27 pmRichard Clarke is the expert on US counter-terrorism efforts. He said Clinton did a lot and it came to a complete stop when Bush came in. Bush told one briefer angrily “all right, you have sufficiently covered your ass, you can go now”.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:28 pmevery single syllable I said is true. Say what you think is false.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:29 pmsay what is true? Clarke is a fake and you know it
October 28th, 2007 at 11:30 pmAm I talking to robroy pretending to be a little girl in a wheelchair?
Comment by Keith — October 28, 2007 @ 11:23 pm
Doesn’t matter. All the trolls share one very small brain and a sociopathic need to lie.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:30 pmhate facts
October 28th, 2007 at 11:31 pmlove it, misspelled? yeah we can win a war with that.
Shayne
October 28th, 2007 at 11:32 pmand your claim to fame lil boy?
Shayne, and your claim to faime?
Comment by brandy — October 28, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
Well for one thing I know how to spell fame.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:32 pmClarke was GHWBush’s head of counter terrorism.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:32 pmrepublicans hate facts , he got fired didnt he?
October 28th, 2007 at 11:33 pm[Comment by brandy — October 28, 2007 @ 10:05 pm]
Ahh….a troll….
October 28th, 2007 at 11:33 pmthat was stupid, slective. bs.
Comment by brandy — October 28, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
Oh and I know how to spell selective. And I know how to type. That’s three braindead.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:33 pmhate facts, yeah you forgot the truth, not a problem fools live here too.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:34 pm#164, RemoveBush,
As I fully acknowledged above, there were indeed some Republicans who floated the “wag the dog” theory in 1998. You have confirmed what I already conceded. But as the CNN interview with then-Speaker Gingrich and the 1998 Newsday article show, this feeling was hardly universal among Republicans and was not at all prevalent among the Republican Congressional leadership, such as Gingrich and then-Majority Leader Lott and then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:34 pmI bet it is the meth.
Comment by lmjp1 — October 28, 2007 @ 11:30 pm
Hard to tell, could just be the homeschooling.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:35 pmShayne You’r a fool
October 28th, 2007 at 11:35 pmWhat makes you think Shayne is a “lil boy”?
October 28th, 2007 at 11:35 pmKeith , what makes you defend him
October 28th, 2007 at 11:36 pmHe quit, because he didnt have a clue
October 28th, 2007 at 11:37 pmrepublicans hate facts
October 28th, 2007 at 11:38 pmcowards
Maybe Clinton could have done more against al Qaeda if he wasn’t sidetracked by XmasCardListGate, WhitewaterGate, MonicaGate, NannyGate, LincolnBedroomGate, VinceFosterGate, TravelGate, and the dozens of other “Gates” that all rolled together are less than W’s smallest crime.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:38 pmrepublicans hate facts
October 28th, 2007 at 11:38 pmyour so smart, have you seen the light of day?
Still waiting on the shayne transsex thing, go for it
October 28th, 2007 at 11:39 pm“Richard Alan Clarke[1] (born 1951) was a U.S. government employee for 30 years, 1973 – 2003. He worked for the State Department during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.[2] Following the presidency of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton promoted Clarke to be the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council. Under President George W. Bush Clarke no longer had cabinet-level access, but continued in the same position until his retirement in January 2003, serving as a member of the Senior Executive Service, specializing in intelligence, cyber security and counter-terrorism. He was thus a part of the executive branch at the time of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.”
No “dumber than a box of rocks brandy” he was not fired, he retired. Way to show respect for a civil servant that served under three Republican presidents.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:40 pmOh your so stupid, go for the namecalling, you dont have a clue
October 28th, 2007 at 11:40 pmRHF apparently has difficulty reading….Maybe it will help if he tries to read postings # 148 and 149 again…If you still can’t read it, have someone read it to you.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:41 pmKeith , what makes you defend him
Comment by brandy — October 28, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
If you mean Clarke—because he was far better than anyone else in the Bush administration.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:41 pmIf you mean Clinton—because he was better than the Bush or Bush administration.
another site says he was? hmmm imagine that
October 28th, 2007 at 11:42 pmSo the noise machine constantly whined about wag the dog, it was all over the news, the politicians were constantly whining about it, and you use a ‘couple’ of examples of people that didn’t say it to disprove it?
BAHAHA, you’re really dumb man!
Comment by republicans hate facts — October 28, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
Either they’re very young or the dumbest bunch of trolls ever. They think we don’t remember all the shit they threw at Clinton over this because they can’t remember anything that’s not on a talking point sheet in front of the.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:45 pmThe topic is W wanting a major criminal, possible Iranian agent, and someone with 1% support of the Iraqi people to head Iraq.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:46 pmshayne is a fool, cant defend it anymore
October 28th, 2007 at 11:50 pm“They think we don’t remember”
Actually, Shayne, as I have shown with the CNN interview with Gingrich and the Newsday article from 1998, your memory is quite faulty.
Even RemoveBush’s posting contains this sentence: ““Although most in Congress rallied around Clinton on Thursday, two Republican U.S. senators and one Central Florida congressman broke with the tradition of standing behind a president during a foreign crisis.”
Got that, Shayne? “Most in Congress rallied around Clinton…”
You might want to get your memory checked.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:50 pmOh your so stupid, go for the namecalling, you dont have a clue
Comment by brandy — October 28, 2007 @ 11:40 pm
To funny, in a group of really dumb out of touch with reality people, otherwise know as TROLLS. You are the dumbest troll ever. Can’t even bother to look up one fact before you spew stupid all over the place. We know what your claim to fame is, or should I say faime so you know what I’m saying. #1, Grand Prize Winner for the Dumbest Effing Troll EVER.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:50 pmlmjp1, would have been interesting if you had anything intelligent to say.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:51 pmI’m smart enough to know how stupid you are baby girl, and that getting out of the house for you probably means you’re gonna go sell your fresh batch of meth!
Comment by republicans hate facts — October 28, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
This braindead girl is too stupid to even cook up a batch of meth. I don’t think the dumb little cow could boil water.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:51 pmShayne, spew? sorry a retard guy cant stomach his scotch.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:52 pmNEWSFLASH:
9/11 HAPPENED ON GEORGE BUSH’S WATCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOT ON BILL’S OR HILLARY’S OR CHELSEA’S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 28th, 2007 at 11:53 pmKeith
October 28th, 2007 at 11:54 pmso stupid, like saying the wreck on I75 happended because of, get real
shayne is a fool, cant defend it anymore
Comment by brandy — October 28, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
Can you spell apostrophe? No of course not. So use my spelling and look it up in the dictionary and maybe you’ll learn how to use one. Of course that would require you removing your head from your ass, but obviously you need some air, quickly.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:54 pmI guess Herbert Hoover was responsible for Pearl Harbor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 28th, 2007 at 11:55 pm9/11 HAPPENED ON GEORGE BUSH’S WATCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOT ON BILL’S OR HILLARY’S OR CHELSEA’S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Keith — October 28, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
oooooops!
Trolls are trumped! Facts are your enemies, trolls! Republicans are incapable of national defense!
October 28th, 2007 at 11:55 pmShayne
October 28th, 2007 at 11:56 pmwhimper whimper, you need a blowup doll
A revolving door of crooks.
Chaotic Modulation
October 28th, 2007 at 11:56 pmHome of the Blogosapians
http://www.YabbaDabbaHubbaDo.com
lmjp1
October 28th, 2007 at 11:57 pmyou’d have to have an idea, oh wait you dont
Got that, Shayne? “Most in Congress rallied around Clinton…â€
You might want to get your memory checked.
Comment by Exley — October 28, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
No Exley, they didn’t. And every Republican on every talk show told the American people that Clinton was just trying to distract them from his problems. You can lie and spin and spew crap all you want. But it is just that a LIE. But that’s never stopped you before. You used to be one of the decent trolls Exley, but like your glorious President you’ve squandered all the goodwill you ever had.
October 28th, 2007 at 11:57 pmShayne more stupid remarks
October 28th, 2007 at 11:58 pmExley, I also agree with Scheuer on a number of issues, including the ones you posted. Appreciate your commentary and respectful answers.
With the issue at hand, however, I simply cannot agree to believing we should trust much of anything involving Chalabi. In one of your prior answers, I got the impression that it would be appropriate to utilize him if the ends seemingly justify the means. Unfortunately this appears to be a bit of a common theme with this war and this Administration. At some point we have to check the means and realize they may not always get us to the ends we are continually deluding ourself over. With someone like Chalabi who clearly puts his interests above anyone else including an entire country and region that’s now under a civil war (to which we are stuck in the middle defending a government that’s in leagues with Iran), I think we should tread very carefully on just how much trust we instill in him for our own interests. He’s burned us once before. It simply begs the question as to why we should somehow blindly trust him again. Yet that’s apparently what our top military and Administration officials do at all turns.
It’s just not good logic nor is it good foreign policy to continually rely and instill trust in men who’ve lied to help put us in the mess we’re in now. Then again, logic is often defied time and again with this Administration.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:00 amShayne, I suggest you again read postings 148 and 149, which contain information from 1998 that disprove what you are saying. I am sorry that the facts don’t jibe with your memory, but the documentary evidence undermines your now-refuted claims.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:00 amI thought TCDon was the dumbest troll in the world but Brandy has now claimed that distinction.
Comment by lmjp1 — October 28, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
Yay, she’s number one, she’s number one, she’s number one. The first time for braindead, ever. Usually she’s in last place. Even in homeschooling she’s last in her class.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:00 amShayne
whimper whimper, you need a blowup doll
Comment by brandy — October 28, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
Why, I have a husband you dumb little heifer.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:01 amShayne and you my friend are so stupid you cant rebut.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:02 amIn the past six years I have not heard one conservative on the MSM admit that Clinton had 25 cruise missiles fired at al Qaeda camp. I have heard them say about 500 times that Clinton did nothing!
When W came in he did nothing. Absolfingultly nothing! Leading many to think that he wanted 9/11 to happen so we had an excuse to take Iraq and Iran’s oil.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:03 amUntil Red State and other right-wing echo chambers stop deleting my posts and banning me after a single dissenting post, you need to STFU about being “silenced†here.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
redstate is even censoring their own. They have declared a ban on any post about Ron Paul. It’s pretty funny to see them so scared of someone who is on their side of the fence.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:04 amShayne, I suggest you again read postings 148 and 149, which contain information from 1998 that disprove what you are saying. I am sorry that the facts don’t jibe with your memory, but the documentary evidence undermines your now-refuted claims.
Comment by Exley — October 29, 2007 @ 12:00 am
Sure Exley I’m going to read more of your cherry picked information. For everytime Gingrich said one thing in support of Clinton he followed it up with 10 times of bashing him on EVERY issue. Plus, I don’t read your crap even the first time, believe me, nobody with half a brain would reread your crap. That means only your half-brain fellow trolls peruse you propaganda.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:04 amShayne
October 29th, 2007 at 12:04 amOk, i got it, your pushing your stupid site, sorry (really, really) good luck with that
so stupid you cant rebut.
Comment by brandy — October 29, 2007 @ 12:02 am
I cannot rebut because I cannot comprehend what you are saying.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:05 amShayne, can you split your duties between here and the Zoo for a while? I have to go out for a bit.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:05 amExley, I suggest that quoting 4 lousy Repukes doesn’t get your antiamerican, treasonous group of warmongers off the hook for this disaster. It’s your usual bait and switch, where your rightwing media is fed the raw meat, and a handful of hypoctites go out and claim to back the president they spent most of their time and lots of our money trying to destroy. Too little too late, as usual with you. Nobody’s buying it except you koolaid-swillers of the 24%.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:05 amShayne and you my friend are so stupid you cant rebut.
Comment by brandy — October 29, 2007 @ 12:02
Rebut what heliumhead. You made one argument, about Clarke, and you were dead on wrong. Your debating skills are at the rank of slug. Rebut, too funny.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:06 amKeith
October 29th, 2007 at 12:06 amtry hon, i know your mentally challenged.
Shayne, can you split your duties between here and the Zoo for a while? I have to go out for a bit.
Comment by Zooey — October 29, 2007 @ 12:05 am
Sure Z, but it’s so difficult to ignore Brandy, her repartee is so stimulating, like a big whiff of nitrous oxide.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:07 amShayne
October 29th, 2007 at 12:07 amcan’t debate a slug, your right. good night
slug
try hon, i know your mentally challenged.
Comment by brandy — October 29, 2007 @ 12:06 am
Hahahahahaha! Good spelling and grammar from a truly menatally-challenged moron. Your brain has been starved of oxygen, brandy, pull your head out of your ass.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:08 amSo folks, we have a new brain dead troll named Brandy. And what have you done? You have fed right into her and turned the thread over to her.
Shame on you. You are all better than that.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:08 amIt’s like trying to play tennis without an opponent.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:08 amMister Opus1,
Thank you for your comments. I also appreciate your commentary and respectful answers. A calm discussion of the issues is much more interesting than a lot of the sniping and name-calling we see going on around us.
I understand the suspicion about and reluctance to trust Chalabi. There have indeed seem to have been a lot of questions surrounding him. But a couple of points…One, according to the McClatchy article, his current role seems to be limited to trying to restore public services and utilities to various neighborhoods in Baghdad. An important job but one that seems to limit his ability to create serious mischief.
Secondly, it is an unfortunate reality that in Iraq and in that part of the world generally, it is an inevitability that one will have to deal with less-than-savory characters in order to get things done. Chalabi is certainly no Boy Scout, but the most important thing is to bring stability to Iraq, defeat Al Qaeda, and start bringing troops home. If dealing with Chalabi helps in some small way to bring that about, it seems to be worth the shot.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:09 amThanks, Shayne. I should be back in about half an hour. :)
October 29th, 2007 at 12:10 amBy the way, I’ve often found the following information pertaining to Bush’s ineptitude and complete negligence of al Qaeda warnings quite disturbing:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b43926.html
What on earth was Cheney and Condi thinking not even bothering to listen to the warnings Clarke was trying to give them? Why didn’t they bother to convene on the task force as requested?
And terminating the program that tracked al Qaeda in the months before 9/11? Surely not Bush?
And then in the midst of all these warnings given, they started cutting counter-terrorist programs?
And stopped predator flights tracking al Qaeda in Afghanistan?
And then sent funds to the Taliban?
And then stopped tracking terrorist money?
And then Bush thinking that the focus on bin Laden was a “mistake”?
And then warning after warning about planes being used as bombs into buildings?
All before 9/11?
Gosh, I’m sorry, what did Clinton do again that was even remotely similar in supreme ignorance of a looming threat?
October 29th, 2007 at 12:12 ambilbobaggins, Keith, Lefty Patriot
October 29th, 2007 at 12:12 amThe girls at Alpha Chi Omega wish to thank you. entertainment was great from all four of you.
Comment by Exley — October 29, 2007 @ 12:09 am
But the only important thing—when I said that Chalabi’s support among the Iraq people was about 1%—-isn’t that essentially correct? If you looked up “puppet” in the dictionary, you’d probably see his picture.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:12 amBTW, my above post regarding Bush’s pre-9/11 negligence was not towards you specifically, Exley. Just one thrown out in general.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:13 amAccording to certain books written about the issue, it seems that plans for invading Iraq were made before W was elected. The gang had to wait for 8 years, until Clinton was out, to start executing the plan. And they DID – thanks to 9/11. Well, they would certainly have a plan B.
The only plan they didn’t have was for post-invasion. But, who cares anyway? The only think that matters for them is “pumping” from Iraq. Even at a cost of almost 4,000 kids being killed, and ca. 50,000 plus being disabled.
Vive les Republicains!!!!
God bless America, and have mercy of W and his gang ( or more accurately, have mercy of shrinking Dick and his gang, that includes W as taking a ride…)
October 29th, 2007 at 12:13 amChalabi supports Al Qaeda, unfortunately, an allowing him anywhere near public services and utilities is an invitation for him to steal more money and screw things up even further. Bringing troops home now will do more to restore stability to Iraq and defeat Al Qaeda than anything else. You wingnuts fail to see what’s in front of your own eyes: our presence has caused the instability, and is a magnet for Al Qaeda, what few of them there are. The continued treatment of AQ as a big problem is a major tactical error, or just plain Bush propaganda.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:14 amComment by MisterOpus1 — October 29, 2007 @ 12:12 am
and continuing the four-week vacation in Crawford.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:15 amand changing the rule so only the VP can order a shootdown of a flight.
and turning off the automatic defenses on the Pentagon.
“Plus, I don’t read your crap even the first time…”
Actually, Shayne, what I have posted in connection to this subject is a partial transcript of a CNN interview and an August 21, 1998 article from Newsday. As I said, those are documentary evidence of contemporary news accounts that disprove your position.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:15 amThe girls at Alpha Chi Omega wish to thank you. entertainment was great from all four of you.
Comment by brandy — October 29, 2007 @ 12:12 am
How would you know? Are you the frat cleaning lady?
October 29th, 2007 at 12:16 amSo now we have a sorority house o’ trolls? Go figure.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:16 amAs I said, those are documentary evidence of contemporary news accounts that disprove your position.
Comment by Exley — October 29, 2007 @ 12:15 am
they do nothing of the sort; they only prove the hypocrisy of the GOP. It is an unfortunate reality that in the GOP’s Washington and in that part of the world generally, it is an inevitability that one will have to deal with less-than-savory characters in order to get things done. Bush is certainly no Boy Scout, but the most important thing is to bring stability to Iraq, defeat the GOP, and start bringing troops home. If dealing with trolls helps in some small way to bring that about, it seems to be worth the shot.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:20 amThe girls at Alpha Chi Omega wish to thank you. entertainment was great from all four of you.
Comment by brandy — October 29, 2007 @ 12:12 am
That’s a funny name for a strip joint Brandy. Now run along, your pole awaits you.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:21 amhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10575121
Dec. 22, 2005
Preliminary results in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad indicate that Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress scored a minuscule 0.36 percent of the votes.
Out of almost 2.5 million voters in Baghdad, only 8,645 voted for Chalabi.
In the Shiite city of Basra, the results indicate he had an equally dismal showing of 0.34 percent of the vote.
In the violent Sunni province of Anbar, 113 people voted for him.
During the election, Chalabi’s campaign posters proclaimed, “We Liberated Iraq.”
The reference was to Chalabi’s role in pushing the United States toward war against Saddam Hussein. Over the years, Chalabi’s group received tens of millions of dollars from the CIA and the State Department.
In that role, before 2003, Chalabi had been funded by the U.S. Congress, through the Iraq Liberation Act, and enjoyed the support of neoconservatives in the United States.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:24 amActually, Shayne, what I have posted in connection to this subject is a partial transcript of a CNN interview and an August 21, 1998 article from Newsday.
Comment by Exley — October 29, 2007 @ 12:15 am
See the part that says “partial transcript” laxative boy? And why don’t you just give us the link to the reich wing site you got these excerpts so we can see exactly how they derived this data. Because some of us don’t need talking points WE REMEMBER.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:25 amLooks like I misoverestimated him. It was 0.3% not 1%.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:26 amI am sorry but I can resist anything but temptation. I will leave the troll alone and call it a night.
Comment by lmjp1 — October 29, 2007 @ 12:17 am
Oscar Wilde, is that you?
October 29th, 2007 at 12:26 amShayne, I doubt this troll is actually female. The troll reminds me of some of the spoiled brat boys I coached. many years ago.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:28 amI know troll buster. That makes it even more fun. I am sorry for the lapse in discipline. I’ll try harder tomorrow.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:29 am“WE REMEMBER.”
So, all documentary evidence is to be dismissed….All contemporary news accounts are to be ignored…Because Shayne “remembers.” Albeit incorrectly
October 29th, 2007 at 12:30 amI am back and I see you guys managed to screw up this thread by force feeding the new troll. However, I did win a large bet, so the day wasn’t a complete loss.
Peace
October 29th, 2007 at 12:31 am>It was in fact the Clinton administration who first embraced Chalabi
so now we are equivocating “embracing” with “starting a world altering/region disrupting” war?
exley, i’ve always told you that advocating doing something stupid and actually doing it are two entirely different beasts. sure, Clinton gave lip service to the idiotic notion that iraq would be better without saddam, but did he feel so strongly about it that he invaded and set the whole region aflame? no. so once again, the man who talks about doing stupid things is in the no way comparable to the man who actually does them.
> Fortunately, there are enough mature liberals here
> who are willing to listen to other viewpoints and enjoy a good debate.
sure, i don’t actually consider you a true troll because you do occasionally make a good, albeit often trivial, point, and you’re arguments don’t involve attacks on our patriotism simply because we disagree with the current occupant of the whitehouse. certainly its always good to have someone challenge your assumptions unless they do it a totally retarded, jingoistic way, like say bigfoot.
exlexia, i do think you need to be honest with yourself and admit that al-queda is more an idealogy than an organization, and the idea of what they represent can never be completely obliterated through military force in the same way that say, the nazi government of germany was.
also, you need to be honest with yourself and realize that if anyone accused any group of people other than arabs of all the things al-queda is supposedly capeable of, you’d dismiss them as paranoid tinfoil hat wearers.
there ARE criminal conspiracies carried out by powerful people in this world other than those than involve islamic extremism, and thats something you need to be honest with yourself and admit. and when you’re engaged in this moment of self-reflection, I would encourage you to ponder the possibility, just the possibility, that people in positions of power may manipulate the patriotism of people like you, to less than noble ends.
so either come out and admit that you’re one of the manipulators, that you like the straussian idea of noble lies, neverending war, and perpetual revolution, or stop pretending its a battle that can be won. and stop pretending like america is some special, magical, unique place thats been uniquely blessed by divinity. because its not. im not the type that argues that america is the root of all evil, im just saying that there are no good guys in this world, period. power corrupts and there is nothing unique about america that has prevented it from happening here.
some people argue that perpetual war is a good thing. while i strongly disagree, the argument is not indefensible.
(for reference, see gary oldman’s breaking glass/chain of creationtion argument in the movie “the 5th element”)
if you do beleive this, theres no point in trying to deny it. honestly, if you want to argue the warmongers position, stop trying to claim its a battle to be won, and admit its a battle to have fun..
October 29th, 2007 at 12:31 amSo, all documentary evidence is to be dismissed….All contemporary news accounts are to be ignored…Because Shayne “remembers.†Albeit incorrectly
Comment by Exley — October 29, 2007 @ 12:30 am
Yes, exley, your bullshit and cherry-picking is to be ignored, and your politicians’ hypocrisy is to be remembered. all contemporary news accounts? more of your patented lies. Shayne remebers accurately and correctly that the right wing became a wing of treason, and the republican party attempted a coup on an elected president. we all remember, very well, and your lies and pitiful handful of hypocritical opportunism by men of low character and no morals doesn’t change that one iota. so keep pitching your crap; we’ll continue to knock it out of the park.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:36 amHere is yet another piece of documntary evidence that completely undermines Shayne’s point. Even liberal columnist Mark Shields said on August 21, 1998 on “Newshour†that the Republican leadership in Congress dismissed the idea of any improper “wag the dog†motives by then-President Clinton:
MARK SHIELDS: The credibility wasn’t helped this week, and there’s a skepticism, there’s a cynicism in our national life, which is nothing new, and this certainly is reinforced. So I think that the end of the “Wag the Dog†scenario was, quite frankly, applied by Speaker Gingrich and by the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms, both of whom backed the president’s action and sort of shot down the-and Arlen Specter did change his position and tune today, as well, from Pennsylvania.
Full transcript: http://www.pbs.org/ newshour/ shields&gigot/ august98/ sg_8-21.html
(Prediction: Shayne will denounce Mark Shields and PBS as “right wing media”)
October 29th, 2007 at 12:37 amMark Shields? At best, a weak centrist, and a pampered menber of the lying class. Another strike-out by exley. shields in no more liberal than you are.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:40 amWell said Lefty Patriot. Apparently Exlax is unable to figure out that that dog won’t hunt.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:40 amHere is an editorial from September 1998 from the premier conservative publlication Nation Review, applauding Clinton’s stike against Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan:
“COMEDY Central’s The Daily Show called it “Operation Desert Shield Me from Impeachment.†Funny, but too cynical. The U.S. missile strikes against terrorist facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan were a response to a real threat: They targeted the operations of Osama bin Laden, the terrorist mastermind who, according to U.S. intelligence, was responsible for the brutal bombing of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and was plotting further attacks on Americans.
Congressional leaders were therefore right to support President Clinton’s actionâ€
—————
As I said, the left-wing myth that there was universal Republican / conservative criticism of President Clinton for launching the cruise missile strikes against Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan have been utterly discredited
October 29th, 2007 at 12:40 amI know troll buster. That makes it even more fun. I am sorry for the lapse in discipline. I’ll try harder tomorrow.
Comment by Shayne
I have a confession, I was lurking in the shadows and loving what I saw. Troll Buster was a little experiment that seemed to work quite well and I was dying to see the crap hit the fan once it appearded to the trolls that TB was gone. I can’t remember the last time I laughed this hard at a troll be whacked.
And I agree, Br***y has got to be either the dumbest or most stoned troll I’ve ever seen on this or any other blog.
Peace
October 29th, 2007 at 12:41 amexley, y8ou’re google skills are admirable, but your little pittance of “evidence” is as laughably weak as your congressmen’s morals.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:42 amSo your argument is that the Republican Party has not been 100% wrong 100% of the time?
October 29th, 2007 at 12:42 amAs I said, the left-wing myth that there was universal Republican / conservative criticism of President Clinton for launching the cruise missile strikes against Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan have been utterly discredited
Comment by Exley — October 29, 2007 @ 12:40 am
And yet it continues to this day, and is standard coin of the realm for trolls to bring up whenever they’re stymied by the facts of Bush’s monstrous and complete failure to defend the US against the attacks of 9/11, the subsequent anthrax attacks, and his failure to capture or punish in any way the ringleaders of either set of attacks. Whatever it is you’re trying to prove is irrelevant to the situation as it stands today, and is another bullshit smokescreen to attempt to hide the treason and incompetence of Bushco.
It’s not working.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:46 amSo your argument is that the Republican Party has not been 100% wrong 100% of the time?
Comment by Keith — October 29, 2007 @ 12:42 am
That appears to be his argument, and he’s having a tough time making it.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:48 amSo your argument is that the Republican Party has not been 100% wrong 100% of the time?
Comment by Keith — October 29, 2007 @ 12:42 am
Does that make hims 100% wrong or is he actually less wrong than usual?
October 29th, 2007 at 12:50 amThanks troll buster, Br**dy is definitely a horse’s ass of a different color.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:53 amExley,
Do you think someone with only 0.3% support from the Iraqi people should lead Iraq because he has the support of the CIA, US corporations, and the White House? (We won’t mention the $100 million fraud conviction and claim of being Iranian agent)
October 29th, 2007 at 12:55 amRHF,
Your ignorance is really causing you to embarrass yourself. Look at posting #135…It was indeed “Dr. Matt’s” contention that the Republican/conservative movement universally condemned the August 1998 strikes as “wag the dog.”
As we see from my unassailable collection of documntary evidence composed of contemporary news accounts, not only was that not the universal opinion of the Republican-conservative movement, it wasn’t even the view of the majority of the Republican conservative leadership.
Try again.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:55 amThanks Shayne, I’m back. Not much activity this late, so I’m heading off to bed.
Keith, your patience is admirable, and seemingly infinite. :-)
October 29th, 2007 at 12:58 am#290,
Keith, Accordong to the McClatchy article, Chalabi is being used in a very limited (but important) role — to help restore public untility service to neighborhoods in Baghdad, more specifically, neighborhoods that until recently had been under the control of Al Qaeda. He is not “leading Iraq.” The people of Iraq have voted and they did not choose Chalabi.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:59 amComment by Zooey — October 29, 2007 @ 12:58 am
October 29th, 2007 at 1:03 amThanks. Some say masochistic. I still haven’t called you yet on Helen Chenoweth(msp)>
Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV):
“‘Look at the movie Wag the Dog. I think this has all the elements of that movie,’ Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said. ‘Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems.’†[Ottawa Citizen, 8/21/98]
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA):
“There’s an obvious issue which will be raised internationally about the response here as to whether there is any diversionary motive involved. … I have deliberated consciously any references to Ms. Monica Lewinsky, but when you ask the question in very blunt terms, the president’s current problems have to be on the minds of many people.†[CNN, 8/20/98]
Former Sen. John Ashcroft (R-MO):
“‘We support the president out of a sense of duty whenever he deploys military forces, but we’re not sure – were these forces sent at this time because he needed to divert our attention from his personal problems?‘ Ashcroft said during the taping of a TV program in Manchester, N.H.†[St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 8/21/98]
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX):
“I’m very supportive of the strike that has happened, but I will tell you that the timing is very questionable. This was the day that Monica Lewinsky has gone back to the grand jury, evidently enraged. Certainly that information will be overshadowed.†[Dallas Morning News, 8/21/98]
Former Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN):
“Coats (R-IN), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, ‘While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack and why it was ordered today, given the president’s personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action.‘†[CNN, 8/20/98]
Former Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL):
“Although most in Congress rallied around Clinton on Thursday, two Republican U.S. senators and one Central Florida congressman broke with the tradition of standing behind a president during a foreign crisis.Sen. Daniel Coats, R-Ind., Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Palm Bay, publicly questioned Clinton’s motives in launching the attacks so soon after his public admission of a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. … ‘The president has, indeed, broken the trust of the American people, and these are legitimate questions that must be answered.’†[Orlando Sentinel, 8/21/98]
Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA):
“All I’m saying is if factors other than good intelligence, military necessity, being prepared for the consequences entered into it, then it is wrong, and it appears that one of those factors that may have entered into it is to take something that could have been done a week ago and do it today in an effort to divert some attention.†[Fox News, 8/20/98]
HERE EXLEY, READ IT AND WEEP.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:04 amNow Exley, you can either apologize or slink away, either way is alright with me.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:05 amTry again.
Comment by Exley — October 29, 2007 @ 12:55 am
Hey, Ex-lax, try this one on for size…
FLASHBACK: Conservative Lawmakers Decried Clinton’s Attacks Against Osama As ‘Wag the Dog’
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/25/wag-the-dog/
Quite the list of GOOPer butt trumpets playing their favorite tune, “Wag the Dog” there, huh? Solo after solo…
October 29th, 2007 at 1:08 amWow, Shayne….That is really impressive that you were able to go all the way back to posting #164 and cut and paste RemoveBush’s posting…Truly impressive research skills.
So, really? You have nothing to offer of your own? Wow…
Well, I have already addressed this posting, starting at posting #188 and then after….
Keep trying.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:08 am‘Night Zooey.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:09 amComment by Exley — October 29, 2007 @ 12:59 am
That’s funny, because those neighborhoods had no al Qaeda before the invasion that Chalabi so much desired. I am sure they had less trouble with public utility before the invasion and occupation. After the American taxpayers have spent the $2 Trillion, do you think they will have more electricity and drinkable water? One in eight Iraqi children die before the age of five now. They are the #2 failed state in the world. We killed or made refugees of 20% of the population.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:09 amWell Exlax, since I didn’t get it from this thread I guess its just, as you say, an unassailable collection of documntary evidence. Isn’t that what you’d call such a collection?
October 29th, 2007 at 1:11 amOh, RoS, I remember that thread well….If you look at the Comments, you will see that I completely dismantled the “wag the dog” myth there, just as I did here. Indeed, much of the information I have posted in this thread comes from my postings from that thread. Go ahead…Take a look. I think you will find the documentary evidece I compiled there that undermined this argument was particularly impressive.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:11 amThe racists at the National Review would cheer any attack on Muslims or Arabs.
They know one thing and one thing only. Operation Blow-up Brown Folks.
-GSD
October 29th, 2007 at 1:15 amThis is from the Conservative Caucus and there are hundreds more but you’ll still deny the facts so why bother.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:19 amShayne, You either copied it from posting #164 (who copied from ThinkProgress’ 9/25/2006 thread) or you copied it directly from the 9/25/2006 thread that RoS referenced…
In either case, I have dismantled this “wag the dog” myth both here and back in the 9/25/06 thread that you lifted these quotes from.
I would suggest you go back and read the Comments section of the 9/25/2006 thread. My posts there are quite enlightening and well-researched.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:20 amSo, GSD, you opposed President Clinton’s decision to launch cruise missiles against Bin Laden’s camps back in August 1998?????
October 29th, 2007 at 1:21 amOops, let’s try again. Conservative Caucus
October 29th, 2007 at 1:23 amExley you are quite delusional. Only you believe that you have debunked any of this. If you believe you are influencing anybody you are a bigger fool than you appear.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:25 amExley, your attempts to minimize the constant rightwing drumbeat of Clinton demonization looks a bit foolish given the fact that republicans made sure more money was spend investigating clinton than was spent on investigating 9-11…. for instance, i’ve dug up statement after statement
from republican sentator after senator insisting that “timetables empower the enemy”, but years earlier, they were making exactly the opposite arguments and insisting on timetables from Clinton. the VAST (not universal, whoever said that was merely making a small exaggeration) amount of right wing energy was devoted to attacking absolutely anything and everything possible about the man, including the angle of his urinary stream.
you guys impeached the man because of perjury about a blowjob…a frikkin blowjob…if thats not indicitave of a mentality and a mindset of a group of people who will use ANYTHING to their political advantage, i dont know what is..
if i though you have evolved to the point where you could be honest with yourself, id dig all the hipocrtically republican quotes about military force up, but i dont see that so i wont bother doing it…
October 29th, 2007 at 1:28 amFrom the link Shayne sent:
“A parade of Republican Senators — including John McCain of Arizona, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, John W. Warner of Virginia and Jesse Helms of North Carolina — voiced support for the President’s decision to strike now. All are prominent party spokesmen on defense and foreign policy matters.”
regarding President Clinton’s cruise missile strike against Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998.
Thanks for the corroborative evidence, Shayne. Once again, we see that prominent Republican leaders supported Clinton’s actions.
You really tripped yourself up there, didn’t you, Shayne? Again, thanks for the corroboration.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:31 amCJ,
We are dealing here with the very narrow and specific historical issue of whether the Republican Congressional leadership supported President Clinton in 1998 on his decision to launch cruise missile againt Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Sudan. As I have shown, they certainly did.
Your points at #309, while interesting, are irrelevant to this discussion
October 29th, 2007 at 1:34 am>you will see that I completely dismantled
also, you need to realize your not going to “completely dismantle” alleged historical myths with a few choice quotes while selectively ignoring the totality of the “lynch clinton” right wing hysteria that was going on at that time. i wasnt even political back then, at all, and i distinctly remember a substantial portion of the right wing talk machine trying to make clinton out to be the anti-christ.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:36 amI think you will find the documentary evidece I compiled there that undermined this argument was particularly impressive.
Comment by Exley — October 29, 2007 @ 1:11 am
Uh… how do you dismantle their exact quotes?
Questions about a Lewinsky connection
But a handful of lawmakers criticized the president’s timing. Sens. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) swiftly voiced concern that Clinton might have acted to divert public attention from his personal problems related to the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. On Monday, Clinton went on national TV to admit an inappropriate relationship with the former White House intern.
Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, “While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack and why it was ordered today, given the president’s personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action.”
Coats said as a consequence of the president’s admission about Lewinsky, Clinton’s credibility has been damaged and he should resign.
Sen. Arlen Specter
“Once the president has broken the bond of trust with the American people, as he has done with his repeated lies, it raises questions about everything he does or does not do,” Coats said. “That is why going forward with his damaged presidency is difficult, if not dangerous to the American people.”
No matter waht you say Exley, some Repub Congressmen did do it. It’s a fact. Get over yourself.
NO ONE HERE GIVES A F_CH WHAT YOU SAY.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:38 amThe New York Times (12/18/98, p. A20) reported that “Under criticism from both parties, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the majority leader, backed away from his charge that the strikes were linked to impeachment
Sure Exley, you forgot the part where they all made the attacks that were so off base that they later had to back away from what they’d already said to the people. You are too pathetic to even try to engage.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:41 amI hope they pay Exley enough to make it worth his while to act like a fool. Really I could care less if they pay him almost nothing. Sorry I brought it up.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:44 amYour points at #309, while interesting, are irrelevant to this discussion
Comment by Exley — October 29, 2007 @ 1:34 am
Exley, you have some nerve telling others what to post. Nobody cares what you think or say. You’ve proven to be a delusional tool of the reich wing. If you don’t like what other posters have to say about your propagandist rants, well too effing bad.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:49 amExley isn’t it time for you to run off to bed so you can wake up in the middle of the night and win an argument the only way you’re able, by talking to yourself. Tool.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:51 am>Your points at #309, while interesting, are irrelevant to this discussion.
Thanks, put personally I beleive the focus of your discussion is too narrrow simply because you can’t view anything, at all really, in political discourse, without a wider glimpse of the context. Also, I think you’re focus on specific republicans needs expansion…ok, for arguments sake lets go with your argument that certain high ranking republicans were ok with the missle strikes.. SOMEONE.. now im not sure who, but some group of people had lathered the republican masses up into such a frenzy about clinton, and everything clinton did, that you can’t seriously argue that clinton wasnt subjected to an atmosphere where he could legitimately be deeply concerned that he would be attacked, perphaps in a manner that imparied his presidential duties, if he took some sort of radical military action.
If he was dealing with an environment which caused him to eventually get impeached for a blowjob, imagine what would have happened, if say, one of the documents he had used to make his case for wider military action had been, say, forged and someone in his administration had been told that before the document was mentioned publicly…think about it, eh?
one of the recurring flaws of your arguments, im my opinion, is that they are fairly myopic.. sure, they may work or be correct in an abstract, localized sense, but when theses ideas collide with a wider reality, or with the logical result of thier execution or thier application to reality, they often falter quite badly. For instance.. Democracy in Iraq…. nice in theory.. in practice… well…how is democracy in Palestine working out for you?
October 29th, 2007 at 1:51 am“But a handful of lawmakers criticized the president’s timing.”
Indeed….And I acknowledged such waaaaaaaay back in posting #131 at 10:48 pm when I wrote, “there were admittedly a few conservatives who floated the “wagging the dog†theory.”
So, congrats, kids…You just spent hours proving something that I already conceded three hours ago.
I also wrote at #131, “but the overwhelming majority of Republicans in Congress supported him.”
And I have proven that to be true.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:55 amI also wrote at #131, “but the overwhelming majority of Republicans in Congress supported him.â€
And I have proven that to be true.
Comment by Exley — October 29, 2007 @ 1:55 am
Nope, the majority attacked him and were so off base that they later were convinced to retract their lies but the slander were already out there for the public to hear. And the right wing talking heads on television continued the message even when the politicians realized how wrong their message was. You haven’t proved one point in days so get over yourself. The only person you are able to convince of your opinion and probably Brandy, but she’s busy on her pole right now.
October 29th, 2007 at 2:04 amCJ,
Your points are well-taken. The topic was indeed narrow. It didn’t start out that way. Initially, it was a broader discussion about terrorism that narrowed when certain posters referenced a popular liberal myth that the Republicans in Congress overwhelmingly lambasted Clinton following the August 1998 cruise missile strikes by accusing him of wagging the dog. As I have show, that is completely false. While a handful of Republicans raised the wag the dog specter, I (and inadvertently Shayne) have shown that the vast majority of the Republicans in Congress supported Clinton’s actions.
While I don’t really want to re-fight the Clinton Wars of the 1990s, it is true he was distrusted by Republicans and conservatives. As it turned out, we were correct to question his honesty in many instances. After all, it turned out he lied to a federal judge (for which he was cited for contempt of court and had his law license in Arkansas suspended…He was also required to admit before a federal prosecutor that he gave misleading testimony). But when it came to national security, many Republicans (including myself) supported Clinton’s policies. I supported the war in Kosovo, his expansion of NATO, and his air strikes against Saddam Hussein in Operation Desert Fox.
As for democracy in Iraq (and Palestine), it may indeed be an unreachable goal at this point. Whether it was a goal worth attempting is another question.
October 29th, 2007 at 2:09 am#314, Ummmm, Shayne, You might want to take a look at the date of that New York Times report. It is dated Dec. 18, 1998.
The cruise missile strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan we are discussing took place in August, 1998. The New York Times article to which you mistakenly refer has nothing to do with the Afghanistand/Sudan cruise missile strikes that we have been discussing here for the last several hours.
The Dec. 1998 article is referencing Operation Desert Fox, which was a joint U.S.-U.K. air campaign against Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs.
You have confused two very different military actions that took place months apart.
Your self-vaunted memory has failed you again, Shayne.
October 29th, 2007 at 2:17 amFor the record Exley the only thing you have proven is that troll buster is 100% correct and discussing anything with you people is a huge waste of time. And one more thing, nobody cares what you did or didn’t support or what you think the facts are or are not. You are not that important to anybody here as far as I can see. Obviously you are not rational enough or you would see that for yourself.
October 29th, 2007 at 2:19 amAnd with that final dismantling of Shayne’s argument, I did you a good night. The World Series and post-game analysis are over so it is time for bed.
Keith, CJ, MisterOpus1, thank you for an interesting and matue discussion.
Shayne, I trust you have learned something here tonight.
October 29th, 2007 at 2:20 am>He’s burned us once before.
he didnt burn the people who wanted to go to war. he gave them exactly what they wanted… a pretense…i wish the powers that be would stop trying to deny they were “duped”..they heard what they wanted to hear..
October 29th, 2007 at 2:22 amIn August, as Miss Lewinsky finished testimony before a federal grand jury, Mr. Clinton ordered missile strikes against terrorism training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in retaliation for the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa….”
October 29th, 2007 at 2:23 amFrom the same page Exley did you read the whole link, I didn’t think so.
>After all, it turned out he lied to a federal judge.
about a blowjob exley..about a blowjob…lets not make a federal case out of something just because the word federal is involved. its a red herring..
spraypainting a mailbox is a federal crime, just because the word federal is involved doesnt automatically make it a life and death or world altering issue..
do you really and truly think that were most politicians put in the same situation he was, they’d tell the truth? as a legal scholar obviously i dont discount the importance a legal oath carries, but, i think any fair person would agree that to avoid the courts becoming political tools, any lawsuit against a sitting president involving non-official acts should be put on hold until after his term of office. punish him for lying under oath, sure, i dont dispute he should be, but don’t make it a political issue, because its not one. anyone who thinks someone as powerful as a united president is the epitome of sexual morality is incredibly naive..
October 29th, 2007 at 2:39 amFor the record Exley the only thing you have proven is that troll buster is 100% correct and discussing anything with you people is a huge waste of time.
Comment by Shayne — October 29, 2007 @ 2:19 am
Right you are, Shayne. I have read all 326 posts. A LOT of people have wasted a LOT of time responding to the troll. The troll NEVER comes into a thread to debate, as is repeatedly claimed. He/She comes in here to do her/his troll duty. He/She distracts, lies when necessary to cause a HUGE conflagration, and generally does his/her best to have troll dung and troll dung responses so spread over the thread that people get aggravated and leave. He/She is one of the trolls most responsible for TP changing to its current system.
Responding on the thread is the WRONG place to respond. That is what the “Report Abuse” icon is for. Please use it.
October 29th, 2007 at 3:40 amAfter 7 hours of that discussion it’s probably worth repeating…
TROLL WARNING: exley is a known serial troll!
October 29th, 2007 at 8:11 amComment by Exley — October 28, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
Since you are trotting out former CIA agents as proof that Clinton did “next to nothing” to get bin Laden, will you also accept the fact from another former CIA agent that Bush fixed intelligence to go to war in Iraq? From an interview in Spiegel Online with Tyler Drumheller, former chief of the CIA’s European operations:
SPIEGEL: The German government was convinced that “Curveball†would not be used in the now famous presentation that then US Secretary of State Colin Powell gave in 2003 before the United Nations Security Council.
Drumheller: I had assured my German friends that it wouldn’t be in the speech. I really thought that I had put it to bed. I had warned the CIA deputy John McLaughlin that this case could be fabricated. The night before the speech, then CIA director George Tenet called me at home. I said: “Hey Boss, be careful with that German report. It’s supposed to be taken out. There are a lot of problems with that.†He said: “Yeah, yeah. Right. Don’t worry about that.â€
SPIEGEL: But it turned out to be the centerpiece in Powell’s presentation — and nobody had told him about the doubts.
Drumheller: I turned on the TV in my office, and there it was. So the first thing I thought, having worked in the government all my life, was that we probably gave Powell the wrong speech. We checked our files and found out that they had just ignored it.
SPIEGEL: So the White House just ignored the fact that the whole story might have been untrue?
Drumheller: The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy.
October 29th, 2007 at 8:31 amExley is the very essence of the serial troll: lie, defend it, lie some more, claim victory and run away. It’s textbook, and it all lies and subterfuge. It’s also the reason the GOP will be dismantled and destroyed in the coming elections.
October 29th, 2007 at 8:32 amComment by RemoveBush — October 28, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
Hmmm…with all those Republicans questioning the decisions of the President, you’d think they’d be labeled traitors and supporters of the terrorists.
October 29th, 2007 at 8:34 am“BAGHDAD – A suicide bomber on a bicycle blew himself up Monday among recruits gathered outside a police camp in Baqouba, northeast of Baghdad, killing at least 27 people and wounding 20, police and hospital officials said.”
October 29th, 2007 at 8:38 am…this feeling was hardly universal among Republicans and was not at all prevalent among the Republican Congressional leadership, such as Gingrich and then-Majority Leader Lott and then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms.
Comment by Exley — October 28, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
Considering that not all members of Congress or the Senate were interviewed, nor were their feelings otherwise made public, there is a good chance that many more questioned the timing of the raid.
October 29th, 2007 at 8:38 amTroll, troll, troll, troll.
Comment by TCDon — October 29, 2007 @ 9:08 am
Come back when you learn how to read, or think, whichever happens first. Your “interpretation” is as accurate as Bush’s WMD claims.
October 29th, 2007 at 9:49 amComment by TCDon — October 29, 2007 @ 9:08 am
God forbid that you’d actually offer up discussion on the U.S. running back to Chalabi.
October 29th, 2007 at 10:09 amIs TCDon going to do the same whining on every thread? :D
October 29th, 2007 at 10:26 am#309, Bad Eye,
Agreed, Chalabi was supposed to be the focus of this thread. But if you look back thru the whole thing, blame for derailing the thread can hardly be laid on TCDon exlcusively…People like Shayne, lmjp1, and RHF cluttered up this thread with irrelevancies long before TCDon’s post this morning.
Only you, MisterOpus1, Keith and I tried to keep the thread on-topic.
October 29th, 2007 at 10:30 amI have reported TCDon for abuse. Have you? If not, please do so!
And thanks to TP for reducing the troll-dung by 27 posts!
If the known serial trolls were removed from the TP site, that number could have been reduced by at least another 100 worthless posts.
Good post, Bad Eye. Now we are back on topic.
Col. Steven Boylan, Petraeus’ spokesman, in defending Ahmad Chalabi with a lame comment on his “energy,” shows himself to be an egregious political hack. Boylan’s email exchange with Greenwald shows the same. Petraeus probably has to keep the political hack as a quid pro quo for keeping his own job. Chalabi is playing the current corrupt, criminal administration like a cheap juice harp. He has their number.
October 29th, 2007 at 10:37 amWell, the highlight of the thread for me was brandy mentioning three posters and saying that the four of them supplied much entertainment.
October 29th, 2007 at 10:37 amComment by Exley — October 29, 2007 @ 10:30 am
Well, some of us were kinda guilty for going off topic with the Clinton/Bush/U.S.S. Cole/strikes against al Qaeda comments. I’ll admit it…we all do it at times.
October 29th, 2007 at 11:24 amComment by hterrya — October 29, 2007 @ 10:37 am
Given the Rightwingers bashing the Democrats for not appearing at a Fox-sponsored debate, making such claims as “how can we expect a Democratic president to take on the terrorists when they run away from Fox News,” I wonder what they say about the Pentagon shunning left-leaning blogs and instead feeding “news” from Iraq to the Righties? We may never know, as the silence has been deafening.
October 29th, 2007 at 11:28 amBad Eye,
“I’ll admit it…we all do it at times.”
Oh, sure. No doubt….But at least, I thin, we try to keep things quasi-connected to the main topic. I was referring more to the off-topic childish name-calling that took up so much space last night.
October 29th, 2007 at 11:43 amAnd Exley continues to spam the thread with off topic discussions of last night while others have tried to move back to the topic. Reporting abuse everybody?
October 29th, 2007 at 2:00 pmReporting abuse everybody?
Comment by Shayne — October 29, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
I just reported the one at 11:43 am
Back on topic: Did you see the topic: Safire: Romney should make Petraeus his VP? http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/29/safire-romney-should-make-petraeus-his-vp/#comments
Petraeus as SiCKO DiCKO’s replacement and Col. Steven Boylan replacing Libby. Dream team!
October 29th, 2007 at 3:42 pm{:-)
“Twenty decapitated bodies were found dumped near a police station on Monday west of the volatile city of Baqouba in Iraq…In Baghdad, a U.S. brigadier general was wounded in an IED attack Monday, the U.S. military reported. He was the highest-ranking American officer to be hurt since the conflict began in March 2003.”
October 29th, 2007 at 4:08 pm“Twenty decapitated bodies were found dumped near a police station on Monday…”
Disgusting and tragic. Really illustrates the evil that we are fighting over there.
October 29th, 2007 at 4:59 pm