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.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
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 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 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?
, there were admittedly a few conservatives who floated the “wagging the dog†theory
Liar….the entire anti-American reich-wing scumbag crowd were screeching “wagging the dog†and “no war for Monica”. More proof that reich-wingers do not take national security seriously.
October 28th, 2007 at 10:53 pmLet’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 pmKeith , that was stupid, slective. bs.
Comment by brandy — October 28, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
Projection from stupid little GOP girls gets boring…
October 28th, 2007 at 11:29 pmsay what is true? Clarke is a fake and you know it
October 28th, 2007 at 11:30 pmKeith
You have a problem?
Comment by brandy — October 28, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
I’m sure his biggest problem with you, is what an ignorant little b!!tch you’re being - but you already knew that, didn’t you baby girl?
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.
say what is true? Clarke is a fake and you know it
Comment by brandy — October 28, 2007 @ 11:30 pm
Funny how michael comes here linking to ann coulter, then ‘girlie’ posters come here that sound just like michael. Whiny, b!!tchy and ignorant - just like michael!
If Clarke was a fake, why was he so highly respected by the Bush family? You saying the Bush’s have that bad of a judgment in character?
October 28th, 2007 at 11:31 pmShayne
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 pmhate facts
love it, misspelled? yeah we can win a war with that.
Comment by brandy — October 28, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
Which ‘war’ is that baby girl? Last time I checked, Congress hasn’t made any declaration of wars lately? Or are you referring with the war or intellects we’re having with insane religious zealots and your ignorant easily debunked claims?
October 28th, 2007 at 11:33 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 pmShayne
and your claim to fame lil boy?
Comment by brandy — October 28, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
He claimed you’re an infamous liar now, what’s your claim to fame baby girl, other than being YASB (figure it out).
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 pmrepublicans hate facts , he got fired didnt he?
Comment by brandy — October 28, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
Did he? Because all of the records showed he resigned.
You really are a SLB aren’t you?
October 28th, 2007 at 11:36 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 pmAs 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.
Comment by Exley — October 28, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
So 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!
October 28th, 2007 at 11:37 pmKeith , what makes you defend him
Comment by brandy — October 28, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
Uh, because he was RIGHT, dum bass?
October 28th, 2007 at 11:37 pmrepublicans hate facts
October 28th, 2007 at 11:38 pmcowards
He quit, because he didnt have a clue
Comment by brandy — October 28, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
And you lied, because you don’t!
October 28th, 2007 at 11:38 pmrepublicans hate facts
cowards
Comment by brandy — October 28, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
Yes you are, but that doesn’t excuse you for the lies!
October 28th, 2007 at 11:38 pmMaybe 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?
Shayne You’r a fool
Comment by brandy — October 28, 2007 @ 11:35 pm
Says the stupid b!!tch that thought Clarke was fired!
The projection from you little girls is HYSTERICAL!
October 28th, 2007 at 11:39 pmStill 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 pmrepublicans hate facts
your so smart, have you seen the light of day?
Comment by brandy — October 28, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
Ah, same troll that was banned earlier in the weep, poor little ‘tard doesn’t know the difference between ‘your’ and ‘you’re’!!!!!
I’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!
October 28th, 2007 at 11:41 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 pm