Bush Ignores His Own Administration’s Guidelines, Refers To Terrorists As ‘Jihadists’
Bush Ignores His Own Administration’s Guidelines, Refers To Terrorists As ‘Jihadists’
In his Rose Garden press conference today, an exasperated President Bush lashed out at critics who question whether he is presenting too rosy of an assessment when he says that the U.S. is making progress in Afghanistan. “The notion that somehow we can let these people just kind of have their way,” said Bush. “Let’s don’t stir them up, is naive or disingenuous.”
“So, in Afghanistan, yeah, we’re making progress,” added Bush. “Does that mean, you know that we’re — it’s over? No, it doesn’t mean it’s over.”
Bush then, using language that his own administration says is counterproductive, described how he believes “the ideological struggle” against “thugs and killers” and “jihadists” can be won:
We’re in a long struggle as I have told you many a time against these jihadists. You defeat them ultimately by the advance of democracy. See, this is an idealogical struggle. These aren’t isolated, kind of law enforcement moments. We’re dealing with a group of ideaologes who use asymmetrical warfare to try to achieve their objective and one objective is to drive us out of Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East or anywhere else we try to confront them.
Watch it:
Earlier this month, the Associated Press reported that “federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center, are telling their people not to describe Islamic extremists as ‘jihadists.’”
According to documents obtained by the AP, even if used accurately, the Department of Homeland Security believes that the use of the word “jihad” “glamorizes terrorism”:
U.S. officials may be “unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims,” says a Homeland Security report. It’s entitled “Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims.”
“Regarding ‘jihad,’ even if it is accurate to reference the term, it may not be strategic because it glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have and damages relations with Muslims around the world,” the report says.
The AP says that the report “appears to have made an impact” at the top level of the Bush administration because Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice “does not appear to have used the word, except when talking about the name of a specific terrorist group, since last September.”
Apparently, the report hasn’t “made an impact” at the highest level.
Transcript:
BUSH: And the notion that somehow we can let these people just kind of have their way. Or, you know, let’s don’t stir them up, is naive or disingenuous. It’s not in our nation’s interest. We are in a global struggle against thugs and killers and the United States of America has got to continue to take the lead. So in Afghanistan, yeah, we’re making progress. Does that mean, you know, that we’re — it’s over? No, it doesn’t mean it’s over. We’re in a long struggle as I have told you many a time against these jihadists. You defeat them ultimately by the advance of democracy. See, this is an idealogical struggle. These aren’t isolated, kind of law enforcement moments. We’re dealing with a group of ideaologes who use asymmetrical warfare to try to achieve their objective and one objective is to drive us out of Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East or anywhere else we try to confront them. So, yeah, I mean, look. Is it tough? Yeah, it’s tough. Is it difficult? Absolutely.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
114 Responses to “Bush Ignores His Own Administration’s Guidelines, Refers To Terrorists As ‘Jihadists’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Accidently on purpose, of course.
_AIO_
April 29th, 2008 at 1:23 pmIt’s tough, it’s hard. In fact I don’t know how he continues to pull it off. How can he keep saying that we are making progress while Iraq and Afghanistan and every single thing that Chimp has touched dissolve into shit?
Tell you what’s tough. It’s tough to watch your country be pulled down by this bunch of arrogant, stupid, and above all, evil bastards.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:26 pmHe didn’t miss the memo!!! He’s just too stupid to figure out what it meant!
April 29th, 2008 at 1:27 pmImmediately after the press conference, Bush asked aides the definition of ideologues and asymmetrical.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:27 pmIn his Rose Garden press conference today, an exasperated President Bush lashed out at critics who question whether he is presenting too rosy of an assessment when he says that the U.S. is making progress in Afghanistan.
Because , as everyone knows , “progress” is a certainty when just the other day , the PM of Afghanistan was almost assassinated………..
April 29th, 2008 at 1:28 pmOh well … so much for that!
April 29th, 2008 at 1:29 pmYou defeat them ultimately by the advance of democracy.
And by restricting democracy in your own country …..
April 29th, 2008 at 1:31 pmKYJurisDoctor Says:
——————————————————————————–
Oh well … so much for that!
April 29th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Oh well …………..so much for the idea of you ever adding anything relevant and that isn’t outlandishly stupid………..
April 29th, 2008 at 1:33 pmEven now, the media still gives him a free pass….
April 29th, 2008 at 1:36 pmThis isn’t surprising. It’s one thing to have to learn your lines. It’s another thing to have to forget old lines in order to learn new ones. Bush has trouble eating pretzels — we can’t expect too much from him.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:36 pmBUSH: And the notion that somehow we can let these people just kind of have their way.
Like you and your horseshit administration , you grinning , braying , stupid , brainless , lying jackass ?
April 29th, 2008 at 1:39 pmThe Boy Who Cried Wolf aka President Bush had been drinking Jack Daniels and smoking weed before the Press Conference so he can’t be held accountable for his words. The man’s an idiot and if Americans don’t know that by now they never will. The World Leaders look at him and laugh as he’s just worthless and running out his term. Even Connie is a joke. I noticed how Bush says it’s Congress’s fault for the oil prices, wasn’t it Bush who said by invading Iraq America would have cheaper oil. Bush said his best friend is the Saudi King and we have seen Bush ask for cheaper oil, Dark Cheney asked the King for cheaper oil and both were told NO. Now the Supreme Court Justices have oil shares to make a profit and kick backs. China and Russia have made deals for oil without a problem yet the US can’t. Halliburton is drilling in both Iraq and Afghanistan I wonder who their selling the oil to. Iraqi pay 50 cent a gallon for gas, here in California it’s $4.57 for a gallon of oil. I noticed how Bush never blamed the Republican controlled Congress who gave him blank checks. We’re in a recession and the GOP says it’s Bill Clinton’s fault. We illegally invaded Iraq and leave our troops without supplies/health care/benefits and yes it’s all Bill Clinton’s fault. For the pass 7 years George W. Bush/Dick Cheney have been on the planet K-Pax.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:41 pmYou know, I’ve been wondering.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:43 pmIs it just me, or are these yahoos bent on bringing about the Apocolypse in their lifetime. And taking the rest of us with them. Didn’t Bush say that God told him to invade Iraq? I mean, wasn’t the world supposed to end in 2000? It didn’t and these guys are really disappointed it seems.
I was just wondering, is all.
Asymmetrical warfare refers to a type of conflict in which parisans engage in fighting or sabotage against an occupying army.
So, Bush is giving al Qaeda quite a compliment.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:43 pmDid you hear the one about the drunk waiting for his hooker to come to the bar?
April 29th, 2008 at 1:45 pmThis guy is a walking ad for Al Qaeda. I mean, has anyone done more to help Al Qaeda grow than him and his administration? They’ve even helped spawn a lot of other little terrorist organizations that never even existed prior to 9-11.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:46 pm“We’re advancing democracy there, so we don’t have to advance democracy here.”
April 29th, 2008 at 1:47 pm14. partisans, not parisans
April 29th, 2008 at 1:48 pmshoeless Says:
——————————————————————————–
“We’re advancing democracy there, so we don’t have to advance democracy here.”
April 29th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
More like : “We’re advancing democracy there , so the “terrists” won’t follow us home and figure out our democracy here is being eliminated”…………
April 29th, 2008 at 1:49 pmI understand the notion that describing them as jihadists is counterproductive because the term may actually appeal to the Islamic fundamentalists that we are talking about.
Maybe Bush shouldn’t have used the term. But, how significant is that? Aren’t jihadists the people that Bush is talking about?
More importantly, watch the clip. Bush does a fair job of explaining the conflict. And it appears that this is a man that really believes that democracy is the answer to Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with him, he doesn’t appear to be in it for the oil.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:51 pmEverything herr dubyah has believed in has been completely wrong.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:52 pmIraqi citizens fighting against an invading and occupying Army = a terrorist?
Only in reich-wing world.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:53 pmBeen hearing a lot of this “it ain’t a law-enforcement” talk lately. The reality is they don’t have words to describe their enemy because they don’t even know who their enemy is.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:55 pmbackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
I understand the notion that describing them as jihadists is counterproductive because the term may actually appeal to the Islamic fundamentalists that we are talking about.
Maybe Bush shouldn’t have used the term. But, how significant is that? Aren’t jihadists the people that Bush is talking about?
More importantly, watch the clip. Bush does a fair job of explaining the conflict. And it appears that this is a man that really believes that democracy is the answer to Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with him, he doesn’t appear to be in it for the oil.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
7+ years of nothing but lies and everything turning to shit , and you’re still stubbornly and stupidly attempting to make non-applicable/inaccurate claims about the worst president in US history , in a weak and mind-boggling attempt to still defend this stupid sorry shithead ; you should be friggin deported …………
April 29th, 2008 at 1:56 pmhe doesn’t appear to be in it for the oil.
Uh-huh, and Larry Craig “is not gay, has never been gay”.
Just little white lies, what’s the harm?
April 29th, 2008 at 1:57 pmRegardless of whether or not you agree with him, he doesn’t appear to be in it for the oil.
Yeah, no shit Sherlock! Gas was about $40 a barrel when Bush stole the WH, now it is at $115 a barrel. It doesn’t sound like our Texas oil man knows what he is doing.
The invasion wasn’t about oil. It was meant to prop up our little petulant boy-king. Make the failure that is George W Bush into something he has never been - successful.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:58 pmExcept for the fact that oil companies have made record profits under the herr dubyah administration.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:59 pmIf everything you suggest is true, it would be relatively easy for a democratically controlled congress to impeach the president.
That’s may be the problem, if.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:00 pmbackup, your naivete is cute. Give Bush the benefit of the doubt, eh?
Not a bad starting point, absent evidence to the contrary. But that’s is not where we are starting now is it?
After being lied to and drug into a preemptive war.
After the torture done at his behest in the name of our country, and the subsequent lies and cover-ups.
After his bald attempts tp tie Iraq to 9/11
After WMD lies.
After the outing of a CIA agent for politcal gain
After the cover up of Tillman’s murder investigation.
And on and on andonandonandon…..
This simian needs to be given, not the benefit of the doubt, but a lifetime behind bars.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:01 pmThe Democratically controlled Congress is only a razor-thin majority right now prohibiting the Dems to enact their pro-American agenda to counter the anti-American agenda from the GOpigs. However, come this Fall the reich-wingers in the House and Senate will be soundly defeated and there will be another 40 years of Democratic dominance.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:03 pmClub the bastard like a baby seal and save the taxpayers money keeping him in jail.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:03 pmbackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
7+ years of nothing but lies and everything turning to shit , and you’re still stubbornly and stupidly attempting to make non-applicable/inaccurate claims about the worst president in US history , in a weak and mind-boggling attempt to still defend this stupid sorry shithead ; you should be friggin deported
If everything you suggest is true, it would be relatively easy for a democratically controlled congress to impeach the president.
That’s may be the problem, if.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
A slim majority in Congress makes it “relatively easy” to impeach the president , eh Einstein ?
How well did Clinton’s impeachment go off with a much larger GOP majority at that time than the Dems presently possess ?
And is that your defense of this clown ?
You’re pathetic……………
April 29th, 2008 at 2:06 pmI watched the news conference this morning and what a child he portrayed himself to be. Blamed everything on Congress, yelled at a reporter, pushed for his tax cuts to be extened I don’t know how many times. He even took a page from McCranky’s book saying that (paraphrasing) if the tax cuts are made permanent, it would relieve people’s mind.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:13 pmHoping to spur members of Congress and the public into action, several lawyers and journalists have laid out the case against Bush and other administration officials in books and articles. For instance, Elizabeth Holtzman, an attorney and former congresswoman who served on the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment hearings, co-wrote The Impeachment of George W. Bush with journalist Cynthia L. Cooper. Former prosecutor Elizabeth De La Vega wrote United States v. George W. Bush et al, which presents evidence of crimes committed by Bush administration officials to a hypothetical grand jury. And the investigative journalist Dave Lindorff wrote The Case for Impeachment with Barbara Olshansky from the Center for Constitutional Rights.
But in an article published in The Nation magazine, University of Texas law professor Sanford Levinson said that while such actions were signs of the president?s “gross incompetence,” they are not the “high crimes and misdemeanors” that allow impeachment. He added that the Democratic leaders? outright rejection of pursuing impeachment weakens the case further.
Levinson argued that the impeachment movement is counterproductive and that its advocates “are in effect supporting a strategy doomed not only to fail but also to be perceived by most of the country as a dangerous distraction from the pressing problems facing the country.”
“If there is anything the country needs less at this point than a self-defeating political strategy,” he wrote, “it is the further domination of public debate by lawyers trading jargon-ridden charges and countercharges about the criminal liability of the president.”
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/4303
April 29th, 2008 at 2:15 pmIgnoranceIsNotBliss Says:
——————————————————————————–
I watched the news conference this morning and what a child he portrayed himself to be. Blamed everything on Congress, yelled at a reporter, pushed for his tax cuts to be extened I don’t know how many times. He even took a page from McCranky’s book saying that (paraphrasing) if the tax cuts are made permanent, it would relieve people’s mind.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
The only thing that is going to relieve people’s minds is getting an overwhelming majority of progressive Dems in Congress , a Dem administration in the executive branch , and replacing the morons on the GOP SCOTUS before they make any more asinine decisions based upon partisanship and political ideology that benefits only 1 political party , and not the country or the citizens of the United States of America…………..
April 29th, 2008 at 2:16 pmbackup
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/4303
April 29th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
You’re now posting 1 lousy opinion on Chimpy and his criminal cabal on a site that has been shut down for over a year ????
What a compelling and searing argument you’ve just made…………
April 29th, 2008 at 2:22 pmI noticed backup uses lots of words to basically do one thing: Defend his monarch against all threats (real or imagined). With 7+ years of documentation on so many abuses which would make the founding fathers blush with rage, backup still hangs his star on the failure that is Bush.
Backup: We get it. You’re on Bush’s side. That is fine, really. Just stop telling us what a great guy he is. That is Karl Roves job. If you consider Bush’s stay in our WH a success for the USA, then we all can get a sense of what success means to you.
Can you comment on why 80% of the American people want a change of course? Is that Congress’s fault too?
April 29th, 2008 at 2:26 pmMore babblespeak from the babbler in chief. All he is doing now is recycling all of the talking points and buzz words from the various marketing campaigns his failed administration has launched. “Jihadist” is a term that most of the political appointees dropped when some of the careerists who know something about Islam pointed out that it could offend moderate Muslims when used generically to describe extremists. The “not a law enforcement exercise” meme was used to excuse trampling civil rights in this country and doesn’t really have any meaning in the Afghan conflict — other than to remind everyone that Bush didn’t really treat it as a military campaign at first and thus lacked sufficient forces to cripple al Qaeda at Tora Bora. Haven’t really heard too much about curing terrorism through democracy since Hamas won the elections in Palestine. Kind of makes you wonder when he will revert to “stay the course”.
All I can say to whoever thought this was a “fair job of explaining the conflict” is lay off Faux News for a while and read a book or five. This is just more belligerent nonsense from a lifelong failure who can’t stagger off the world stage fast enough.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:31 pmI noticed that he is getting extremely ‘TESTY’ with questions he doesn’t like. He is nervous about something, like maybe some secret he has that him and Cheney have been privately discussing…like maybe an attack on Iran in the planning?
April 29th, 2008 at 2:37 pmChristofascists are the Jihad we must eliminate.
Don’t let the media sway you; that’s their job.
Keep you eye on the Bush and your hand on the trigger
April 29th, 2008 at 2:39 pmEvery war based on lies at some point is said to be promoting democracy.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:42 pmWhere the fu[k are the wmd’s you POS ?
There is plenty to question about Bush policy. But you asked the question:
Public opinion is not always an arbitor of true understanding, beyond the partisan rhetoric.
http://www.boston.com/ news/ globe/ editorial_opinion/ oped/ articles/ 2005/ 11/ 16/ truman_bounced_back____so_will_bush/
April 29th, 2008 at 2:43 pmbackup will never backdown in his backup of this brokendown administration.
“jihad” has meaning for Muslims beyond “war”. Of course, the terrorists and Bush have a similarly limited view of the concept.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:43 pm“We’re in a long struggle as I have told you many a time against these jihadists.”
Bush missed the memo. Bush’s brain checked out long time ago.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:45 pmThis boner has been in over his head since he left the sand box.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:45 pmPublic opinion is not always an arbitor of true understanding, beyond the partisan rhetoric.
It’s the cut-n-paste queen in all his glory.
Truman is dead. Bush is a motherfcuking moron.
Like you.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:45 pmReich-wingers are so desperate that they continually attempt to compare herr dubyah to Truman, Lincoln, Washington, Jebus….whomever, but they will never take herr dubyah for exactly what he is: a complete and utter failure.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:46 pmTrying to paint the Shrub in a positive light is as useful as painting a face on a turd, then having a conversation with it.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:48 pm#34: Is that what you Bushbots are reduced to? Your boy is grossly incompetent but that isn’t enough to justify impeachment?!? Dayum, you have the bar set so low an earthworm couldn’t limbo under it.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:50 pmSee everybody. Our goal is spreading democracy. That’s why we are so closely allied with the Saudi royal family, and why we considered military dictator Pervez Musharraf such a close ally. That’s why we like Kuwait and the UAE as well. Those countries are all such staunch democratic governments.
This ideological battling stuff is hard work….
April 29th, 2008 at 2:52 pmbackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
There is plenty to question about Bush policy. But you asked the question:
Can you comment on why 80% of the American people want a change of course? Is that Congress’s fault too?
Public opinion is not always an arbitor of true understanding, beyond the partisan rhetoric.
With public opinion of Bush’s competence and honesty at record lows, it may be hard for many to imagine his ever being seen as anything but a failure. But in 1952, when Truman’s approval rating was down to a miserable 22 percent, who would have guessed that millions of Americans 50 years later would look back on him with admiration as a man of character and a gutsy, plainspoken leader?
http://www.boston.com/ news/ globe/ editorial_opinion/ oped/ articles/ 2005/ 11/ 16/ truman_bounced_back____so_will_bush/
April 29th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
There seems to be 3 “tiny” problems with your post and the link you provided.
1st off , the article is an Op/Ed piece
2nd It was not written by a presidential historian or any type of historian ; but rather , courtesy of Wikipedia :
Jeff Jacoby (born February 10, 1959) is a conservative American social/political commentator. He is known for his reactionary opinion pieces which consistently defend the policies of the Bush administration and the Israeli government.
3rd , and most important : Chimpy is nowhere near reminscent of of Truman or being a man of character and a gutsy, plainspoken leader.
He is a grinning , braying , lying , stupid , retarded jackass ……
You try to defend the worst president in US history by posting a nonsensical Op/Ed piece written by someone who may as well be working for the current horseshit administration ?
If you wish , post your address so I may send you a dollar to buy yourself a clue…………
April 29th, 2008 at 2:54 pmLet me pile on as well. Truman didn’t lie to get us into a war, nor did his planning result in making matters worse in the region. If the Japanese had refused to surrender after Nagasaki and Hiroshima were blown to bits, perhaps there would be a parallel to Iraq, but since they still want us gone, there is no parallel.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:55 pmbackup reminds me of the good wife defending her husband against accusations of molesting their 12 year old daughter. Despite the screams at night and the bloody sheets she will stand by her man.
Pull that pillow down a little more over your ears backup, Bush is a good man. Just ask KKKarl.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:58 pmYou defeat them ultimately by the advance of democracy.
Let them have our democracy…we’re not using it.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:01 pmMCMetal,
Good rebuttal. I would just add that the editorial “backup” posted is from November of 2005. Time has already proven there was no “bounce back” from Bush’s 37% approval at that time. In fact, Bush has only gone lower in every major poll.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:01 pmAnd I’m sure at the time of Truman’s 22% approval rating, his detractors didn’t have any complaints of him either. And the 22% were all clueless morons. They idiocy seems to have been contagious - if you consider Truman’s approval in retrospect.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:01 pm“Let’s don’t stir them up
Funny talk from a spoiled rich brat born in Connecticut.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:02 pmI knew Backup would have nothing to offer. Cut and paste, Op-Ed pieces to support his positions. Nice try, backup.
80% of the employers of Bush do not like him. That seems to be a big deal. So what does he do: He compares present day W to dead presidents. Geez, that is a stretch. Nice try, though.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:05 pmShe’s going to C&P some newsmax links next to “support” her stance.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:06 pmbackup Says:
And I’m sure at the time of Truman’s 22% approval rating, his detractors didn’t have any complaints of him either. And the 22% were all clueless morons. They idiocy seems to have been contagious - if you consider Truman’s approval in retrospect.
Stop! Teh stupid, it burns….
April 29th, 2008 at 3:07 pmbackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
And I’m sure at the time of Truman’s 22% approval rating, his detractors didn’t have any complaints of him either. And the 22% were all clueless morons. They idiocy seems to have been contagious - if you consider Truman’s approval in retrospect.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Remember the 20% of us originally who knew illegally invading and occupying Iraq was a monumentally idiotic decision ?
That is the comparison of how Chimpy’s current plight is reminscent of Truman’s presidency ; history will condemn Chimpy (and rightfully so) , as well as you enablers and blind supporters of such a traitorous mental furball ……..Not vindicate him.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:14 pm2008 is the beginning of “history’s” take on the Bush administration. McMetal has the comparison nailed.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:18 pmI just wanted to suggest the possibility you may be being blinded by short sighted partisanship.
But, I guess just because it has happened before, with other ‘dead presidents’, it doesn’t mean it could happen again.
Just like history doesn’t repeat itself.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:21 pmasymmetrical
That’s a pretty big word for a tiny brained simian to use.
How would symmetrical warfare look?
Maybe we line up in rows across from each other and do a fun grenade toss?
April 29th, 2008 at 3:28 pmMy opinion, like yours, is less than unbiased. Although you consider an op-ed piece biased (or less than objective), it can still be used to make a point more effectively, or more readily, than making the same (admittedly biased) point, with less effort. (plus, it’s probably been spellcheck; that’s a big deal around here)
If an assertion is in an op-ed, is it somehow not really an assertion?
April 29th, 2008 at 3:31 pmBuckie Boy Says:
I noticed that he is getting extremely ‘TESTY’ with questions he doesn’t like.
Larry Craig says: “Did someone say TESTES?”
April 29th, 2008 at 3:32 pmIt’s just another signing statement. Double-standard Dubya SOP.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:40 pmIgnore the screams backup.
Like a good btch.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:43 pmROFL!!!!!! Priceless….the reich-wing trolls sink to a new low.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:50 pmI guess you could characterize it as ignoring screams; or maybe as not allowing every distraction to cause you to become impotent.
The world is imperfect, my friend, but do you allow those imperfections to scuttle any and every initiative?
Maybe the founders should have backed off after the Boston Massacre? I mean, five avoidable deaths, for what? Liberty? Pursuit of Happiness? Taxation without representation? Was it really worth it? Really? Try telling that to the mothers of the slain protestors.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:53 pmYou defeat them ultimately by the advance of democracy.
As I said over at C&L - We don’t go into another country with any thought of spreading democracy, liberty or freedom. We go into other countries with the resolve of spreading unfettered capitalism. Nothing less. And screw the consequences.
Having said that, it appears that Naomi Klien’s Shock Doctrine has landed here in the good ole USofA. (yeah, I finally finished reading it.)
April 29th, 2008 at 3:55 pm*flagged* Off-topic
April 29th, 2008 at 3:56 pmThe trolls really don’t understand the disgust that so many people have for bushbaby and his criminals.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:03 pmI know people who work for Northrup who are absolutely disgusted with bush.
And that is with people who have worked 20+ years for the company.
People are at the boiling point with this shit administgration
take care
tony and guidedog Lido
backup Says:
I guess you could characterize it as ignoring screams; or maybe as not allowing every distraction to cause you to become impotent.
The world is imperfect, my friend, but do you allow those imperfections to scuttle any and every initiative?
Maybe the founders should have backed off after the Boston Massacre? I mean, five avoidable deaths, for what? Liberty? Pursuit of Happiness? Taxation without representation? Was it really worth it? Really? Try telling that to the mothers of the slain protestors.
Uhmmmm. What? It is impossible for you to know about US history and still want your king to stay in office. People with a sense of history know when their country is being invaded by the likes of Bush and Cheney. Its funny you bring up the issues of the 1770’s in America. I am convinced that if you were called upon to assist the founding of America, you would be too scared to help. You like kings. They make your life easier and less cluttered with your own thoughts. No way you would have assisted the patriots who founded this country. It’s frankly a shame that you even live here in America.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:07 pmbackup Says:
Public opinion is not always an arbitor of true understanding, beyond the partisan rhetoric.
When the public has 7+ years to finally come to the realization that everything they have been told by their corrupt incompetent leader has been a lie, when they see their county disintegrating right before their very eyes because of his blatant lies and gross incompetence, and the only support remaining for this worthless talking pile of shit are a few groveling, slack-jaw, deadenders, public opinion is definitely an arbitor of true understanding.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:27 pmStratRat.
We were attacked on 9/11. Our leadership decided to act to prevent similar attacks from happening again.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Because the threat seemed to abate (arguably due to policies enacted) and the war has become unpopular, there is an effort to quit, that I think will only postpone the address of the issues for a later more perilous time.
I respect your opinion. But, I think my sentiment is less about proping up a tyrannical king and more about following through on an effort that, although unpopular, has become no less important.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:29 pmHey, Chimpy!!
KISS MY LIBERAL ASS.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:32 pmStratRat Says:
Its funny you bring up the issues of the 1770’s in America. I am convinced that if you were called upon to assist the founding of America, you would be too scared to help. You like kings. They make your life easier and less cluttered with your own thoughts. No way you would have assisted the patriots who founded this country. It’s frankly a shame that you even live here in America.
Undoubtedly. I also find it amusing when these right-wingers invoke the founding fathers and the Revolutionary War. They don’t even understand that their ideological brethern at the time were not the revolutionaries, the were the Tories. If the Revolutionary War were held today, these right-wing Republicans would be fighting on the side of Britain.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:32 pmAnd as for you, backup, you despicable quisling, have you ever heard the phrase, “When you find yourself in a hole - stop digging!”
Think about it.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:34 pmbackup Says:
We were attacked on 9/11. Our leadership decided to act to prevent similar attacks from happening again.
Because the threat seemed to abate (arguably due to policies enacted) and the war has become unpopular,
Hey doofus, did you know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Why don’t you hit yourself in the head with a hammer until you get some sense? It probably won’t help, but it couldn’t possibly make you any dumber.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:35 pmbackup whines:
We were attacked on 9/11……..
And who, pray tell attacked us? It sure wasn’t Iraq. As a matter of fact, Iraq was an enemy of the ones who attacked us weren’t they?
But Bush wanted to be remembered as being a War President, and Sadam had shot at his Daddy, so we diverted our resources and attention from our enemies and attacked the enemy of our enemies.
The sycophant whores that defend Bush aren’t credible. My guess is that they defend Bush because they all worship Jesus and the real foundation for their support is their common mythology.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:43 pmThey also continue to support Bush because, if they admit that he and they have been wrong, they are then admitting that they are accomplices to mass murder.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:54 pmIraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But, what many leaders of the day feared was Saddam’s interest in WMD and his propensity to either use them against his enemies or pass them along to terror groups with similar intent. After 9/11, pre-emption seemed more appropriate than waiting for an attack with lethal consequence. Don’t take my word for it:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Do you criminalize someone for acting on information (especially if he had the obligation as president) that most others believed at the time?
Do you use your hindsight of the situation to judge the response that occurred 6 years ago, without the benefit of the knowledge that you now have?
April 29th, 2008 at 4:54 pmHey backup
Want the bottom line as to why everyone here is so negative and uncompromising about Chimpy and your constant attempts at deifying him ?
It has nothing to do with your ludicrous claims of “opinion” nor is it “partisan politics” ; it is simply that he has proven himself to be s narrow-minded , simple-minded , dishonest clod , with not 1 tangible or undisputed success in 7+ years as president.
We come at you with facts and numbers ; your response is opinion(s) based upon the prattlings of life-long GOP backers like yourself.
Not much wiggle room there to try and make silly predictions……….
April 29th, 2008 at 4:54 pmbackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
Hey doofus, did you know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But, what many leaders of the day feared was Saddam’s interest in WMD and his propensity to either use them against his enemies or pass them along to terror groups with similar intent. After 9/11, pre-emption seemed more appropriate than waiting for an attack with lethal consequence. Don’t take my word for it:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Do you criminalize someone for acting on information (especially if he had the obligation as president) that most others believed at the time?
Do you use your hindsight of the situation to judge the response that occurred 6 years ago, without the benefit of the knowledge that you now have?
April 29th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I don’t
I always insisted that the UN inspectors be allowed to finish their job ; that they weren’t , is another sorry episode that reflects on the type of individual Chimpy is.
As does your constant attempts at excuse-making/apologizing for that stupid retarded simian d-bag reveals a lot of what you’re truly about.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:57 pmBush is auditioning for his upcoming role of General Custer in the remake of Little Big Man. the truth is always the opposite of what he says.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:59 pmbackup Says:
Saddam’s interest in WMD
You and your leader are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people because he and you surmise that Saddam had an “interest” in WMD. If there is a hell, you will surely join your demonic leaders there for enternity.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:03 pmApparently, in light of the situation as it was (not as you pretend to remember), congress voted to authorize it. Most, at the time, saw the threat as significant.
I’m not sure if you strategy of ‘let’s wait for more attacks’, would have carried the day.
I’m not as impressed with your 20/20 hindsight, as you are.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:11 pmbackup Says:
Although you consider an op-ed piece biased (or less than objective)
One would think being called op-ed would be a big enough clue even for a moron.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:11 pmIgnoranceIsNotBliss Says:
Having said that, it appears that Naomi Klien’s Shock Doctrine has landed here in the good ole USofA. (yeah, I finally finished reading it.)
It appears bushies are seeing to it that the economic element of the shock doctrine is in place before November.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:13 pmMCMetal Says:
It has nothing to do with your ludicrous claims of “opinion” nor is it “partisan politics” ; it is simply that he has proven himself to be s narrow-minded , simple-minded , dishonest clod , with not 1 tangible or undisputed success in 7+ years as president.
Let’s not forget about that fish he caught.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:15 pmbackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
Apparently, in light of the situation as it was (not as you pretend to remember), congress voted to authorize it. Most, at the time, saw the threat as significant.
I’m not sure if you strategy of ‘let’s wait for more attacks’, would have carried the day.
I’m not as impressed with your 20/20 hindsight, as you are.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Funny though how you are still impressed and infatuated with those that 1st pushed and planned the (illegal) invasion and occupation of Iraq , who have proven to be monumentally incorrect ; and in regards to everything , not just Iraq …….
April 29th, 2008 at 5:16 pmYou’re obviously not getting the point. Let me try this. It’s okay to use someone elses opinion to make your point.
Here’s how they do it at ThinkProgress:
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2008/ 04/ 29/ elizabeth-edwards-mccains-health-plan-shows-he-is-completely-out-of-touch-with-reality/ #comments
Elizabeth Edwards is the wife of former candidate for president. She’s not a doctor. She’s not a healthcare industry expert.
But, TP uses her opinion to help make their point. Just like I used someone elses op-ed to make mine.
Does that help at all?
April 29th, 2008 at 5:34 pmBackup said:
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But, what many leaders of the day feared was Saddam’s interest in WMD and his propensity to either use them against his enemies or pass them along to terror groups with similar intent. After 9/11, pre-emption seemed more appropriate than waiting for an attack with lethal consequence. Don’t take my word for it:
Many thought that Saddam had no WMD, including people on the ground who were not allowed to continue because Bush was in it for the oil, and for revenge. In the mean time, we knew that North Korea was much closer to having WMD, now does have them, and Bush did not and I assume does not intend to bomb them. Where’s the logic?
April 29th, 2008 at 5:43 pmbackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
One would think being called op-ed would be a big enough clue even for a moron.
You’re obviously not getting the point. Let me try this. It’s okay to use someone elses opinion to make your point.
Here’s how they do it at ThinkProgress:
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2008/ 04/ 29/ elizabeth-edwards-mccains-health-plan-shows-he-is-completely-out-of-touch-with-reality/ #comments
Elizabeth Edwards is the wife of former candidate for president. She’s not a doctor. She’s not a healthcare industry expert.
But, TP uses her opinion to help make their point. Just like I used someone elses op-ed to make mine.
Does that help at all?
April 29th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
It most certainly does.
It helps to reveal how much more partisan you are after accusing everyone else here of the same exact type of behavior you are exhibiting.
You try to knock Mrs Edwards , who is not only a terrific woman and person , but also very educated.
Edwards spent some of her childhood attending school in Japan, where her father, Vincent Anania (1920–2008), an Italian-American United States Navy pilot, was stationed. She attended Mary Washington College and then transferred to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill receiving an undergraduate degree and completing three years of graduate work in English, as well as earning a J.D. at the same institution. She met John Edwards when they were both law students there.
You moronically attempt to disparage this brave , beautiful woman , who is monumentally more qualified to be asked about dealing with insurance companies and the medical establishment as her JD degree will attest to , than some scumbag shill for the horseshit Chimpy administration whom you try to prop up as some type of credible individual ; when his own bio and behavior reveals he doesn’t deserve 1 shred of interest or a nano-second to be heard.
You’re a real fu(king imbecile……………
April 29th, 2008 at 5:49 pmtouched a nerve there.
Let me help you rephase it.
“It’s okay to use the opinions of people that we agree with to help make our points, but not okay to use the opinions of those we don’t agree with to make our points.”
BTW, Elizabeth Edwards is a great woman. I’m just showing how you can, and do, use her opinion to reinforce your views. If I find someone elses opinion piece that makes a point better than I can make it; I am willing to share it, in the hopes it can help benefit us all.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:56 pmHigh Plains.
Again, don’t spend too much time questioning my logic. Spend the time reviewing the statements of today’s detractors, back in 2002.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Ask them what was so significant about the precieved threat Saddam posed.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:58 pmbackup, don’t forget how ‘everyone knows the world is a better place without saddam.’ and ain’t it the truth. what a beautiful transformation it’s been without him in there, right? remind everyone of that and it’s checkmate. you win! you will have convinced everybody to just sit tight another forty years or so until someone else writes another op-ed saying what a brilliant, bold move this war was. otherwise people might get the impression that you’re a blithering nincompoop who’s small-talked every local 7-11 clerk into a state of rigor mortis and you just come on sites like this to get someone to listen to you.
April 29th, 2008 at 6:03 pmbackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
touched a nerve there.
Let me help you rephase it.
“It’s okay to use the opinions of people that we agree with to help make our points, but not okay to use the opinions of those we don’t agree with to make our points.”
BTW, Elizabeth Edwards is a great woman. I’m just showing how you can, and do, use her opinion to reinforce your views. If I find someone elses opinion piece that makes a point better than I can make it; I am willing to share it, in the hopes it can help benefit us all.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Umm , no moron ; I’m merely attempting to point out the folly and inherent stupidity in your useless exercise here.
Do you even have the slightest inkling on what you’re being told ?
Choosing someone that might be a bit more eloquent than yourself to make your point for you is all well and good ; SO LONG AS IT IS A CREDIBLE SOURCE.
Someone who has been a Chimpy administration cheerleader and mouthpiece for years , IS NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE ; do you understand that yet ?
Mrs Edwards has the education , and because of her illness , plenty of experience to be saying what she is saying.
The GOP/Chimpy tool , whose Op/Ed piece you laughably posted a link to , HAS NO BACKGROUND WHATSOEVER IN BEING A HISTORIAN , PRESIDENTIAL OR OTHERWISE.
His claim(s) are baseless and insulting , and are more in line with wishful thinking/a miracle occurring , than anything remotely resembling reality , much less likely or a possibility to ever come true………………….
April 29th, 2008 at 6:25 pmSomeone who supports Bush is impartial and not credible, but someone who was the wife of the Democratic VP candidate in 2004 and a Democratic
April 29th, 2008 at 6:38 pmbackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
Someone who has been a Chimpy administration cheerleader and mouthpiece for years , IS NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE ; do you understand that yet ?
Mrs Edwards has the education , and because of her illness , plenty of experience to be saying what she is saying.
Someone who supports Bush is impartial and not credible, but someone who was the wife of the Democratic VP candidate in 2004 and a Democratic
Presidential candidate in 2008 is absolutely unbiased and credible on McCain’s (an opposition leaders) healthcare initiative.
I’ve been to graduate school and I’ve also been to the hospital for my own care and for the care of loved ones. Am I as credible a source to comment on McCain’s healthcare initiatives as Edwards?
I’m not debating the value in using Edwards opinion in the healthcare debate.
I do think it’s hypocritical for those that become unglued when the very same circumstances are reversed.
But, I’ll quit, because I understand that I won’t change any minds here. (And I really have no desire impede the thread).
But, if you think that Edwards (a very decent lady, but the wife of a Democratic partisan) is somehow unbiased and/or objective in this debate; maybe that’s part of the problem.
April 29th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Know what the difference is you Chimpy nut hugging ignoramus ?
Mrs Edwards deals in/with SPECIFICS , that McMoron and his lobbyist crew do not even want to acknowledge , much less get into fully . Elizabeth is giving you numbers that weren’t pulled out from her ass at random ; the clown you are using is trying to make an inapplicable comparison based upon nothing but historical events that have nothing to do whatsoever with Chimpy , his horseshit administration , or everything they’ve done , which is nothing but mistake after mistake.
You are trying to claim an equivalence that simply does not exist ………
April 29th, 2008 at 6:49 pmBackup: you are an apologist for evil. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
April 29th, 2008 at 6:56 pmMCMetal. I was using the guys op-ed, not because he was some reliable source or expert, but only because he said what I was thinking as well as I could have said it. That’s it. The information in his piece are not that controversial or disputed. The poll numbers can be easily verified, both then and now.
I respect Elizabeth Edwards opinion on healthcare due to her circumstances, but I’m also not surprised her ideas are in opposition to McCain’s; she’s a democrat, he’s a republican.
My goal wasn’t to get you fired up. I apologize if I did.
Peace.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:00 pmbackup Says:
——————————————————————————–
MCMetal. I was using the guys op-ed, not because he was some reliable source or expert, but only because he said what I was thinking as well as I could have said it. That’s it. The information in his piece are not that controversial or disputed. The poll numbers can be easily verified, both then and now.
I respect Elizabeth Edwards opinion on healthcare due to her circumstances, but I’m also not surprised her ideas are in opposition to McCain’s; she’s a democrat, he’s a republican.
My goal wasn’t to get you fired up. I apologize if I did.
Peace.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
No
You would never get me “fired up” ; you are a sorry Chimpy ball monger.
If anything , I feel nothing for any of you , except you are not at all Americans and should all be deported.
BTW
The only thing you’ve stated correctly this entire time , is the similarity in poll numbers between Truman and Chimpy ; the rest of your statement couldn’t be a bigger load of bullshit if plowed a plain in Oklahoma.
Their is no “information” in that Chimpy cheerleader’s piece at all ; just hopeful conjecture and his own nonsensical crap in supporting the worst president in US history like you’re doing……….Sad.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:07 pmBut, if you think that Edwards (a very decent lady, but the wife of a Democratic partisan) is somehow unbiased and/or objective in this debate; maybe that’s part of the problem.
Follow the money. Did Jacoby gain anything from his written position? Like being paid to write it? Did Mrs. Edwards? The wife of a former dem candidate, who isn’t running for further office, vs. a paid shill?
Do the math.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:23 pmbarfly. I’m not communicating this very well. I don’t care if Jacoby was paid or not. I agreed with his sentiment and used his words to express my view. I have never tried to pass of his words as anything other than opinion. As much an opinion as mine. But also an opinion based on fact. (Truman was at 22% during his term and is now rated far more favorably).
And we both know Edwards doesn’t need money. But, just because someone doesn’t need money, doesn’t mean they don’t have other motivations. John Edwards still hasn’t endorsed either candidate. Is he hedging his bet? Does he have further political aspirations? Do you really believe if Elizabeth Edwards somehow approved of McCain’s plans for healthcare, that she would come out in support of them?
Even if you take motivations out of the equation, I suggest there really isn’t such a thing as an unbiased or truly objective source. Every one (or any organization) you come in contact with has some agenda. Some hide them better than others.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:45 pmbackup Says:
Apparently, in light of the situation as it was (not as you pretend to remember),
Hey upyourbackside, I was listening to Scott Ritter, who was screaming to the heavens that Iraq had no WMD, because he personally had seen them destroyed. I remember very well. It’s shitheads like you who pretend that the invasion was because “Saddam had an interest in WMD”.
The blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is on your hands. I hope you rot in hell for what you’ve done.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:56 pmshoeless. Will St. Peter throw me a bone for wanting an end to Saddam’s tyrannical leadership of his people. An end to the assasinations by Saddam and the institutional rape by his sons. The genocidal chemical attacks against his own people. Will St. Peter put in a good word for me, for supporting the effort to give the citizens of Iraq the right to free elections for the first time in decades? For supporting the removal of a despot that almost all will admit that we are better off without?
Hopefully, God will see the situation in less black and white terms, than you do, my friend.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:06 pmI doubt it, upyourbackside. You are an accomplice to the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of people. You have enabled the wreckage of the lives of millions more. Your only excuse for the evil you have brought into the world is your claim that the rivers of blood and devastation your leader has wrought, was perpetrated in order to remove an equally bad person. Even that pathetic excuse is ludicrous, given the fact that you and those you support have destroyed the lives of 26 million people.
Furthermore, you are unrepentant for your crimes against humanity, and you only call for more bloodshed in the name of your evil master. There is no hope for the likes of you. I only hope for the death and misery you have brought upon all those millions of innocent people to be visited upon you, and those like you. May you suffer eternally for what you have done.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:19 pmshoeless. Don’t sugarcoat it. What are you really trying to say?
Seriously, you’re myopic. I understand the consequences of going to war in Iraq. But, you have no comprehension of the consequence of taking no action. You also live in a fantasyland were you can substitute hindsight for judgement. You act as though there is some small minority responsible for the invasion of Iraq and it’s consequences, but you ignore the fact that most people of the time saw the same threat that Bush saw and agreed that action should be taken.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=2_KEWUU33Lg&feature=related
Because things didn’t turn out as people expected back in 2002, you want to criminalize those that chose to act with the support of the people, given the circumstance of the time. Not the circumstance as you see it today, in retrospect.
If your view had validity, the democratically controlled congress would impeach Bush and put him in jail. The reason that’s not happening, is that your interpretation of the situation is invalid.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:04 pmbackup,
God will rip your head off and shit in your windpipe for supporting Bush’s War. How many innocents Americans and Iraqis have died for that little puke’s ego?
And the supporters of Bush have blood on their hands. Hell, they have blood all over their body.
Let this be the last thought that crosses your mind every night as you go to sleep; your body is coated in the warm, sticky blood of innocent children and soldiers.
Sweet dreams. Peace.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:19 pmchingebush. I’ve been a soldier willing to die to defend your rights to be free and to say what you want to say.
I lament the loss of life in Iraq, but conincidently understand that there are worse things in life than death.
I understand the argument that the Iraqis should have self determined their own freedom. And I also understand that one of the main reasons to go into Iraq (the WMDs) was a misperception, based on Saddam’s bluff, that many believed.
That being said, I suppose you preferred the situation of Saddam’s tyranny and oppression of the Iraqis, institutionalized rape by his sons, and the atmosphere of fear he posed to his people, his neighbors and the rest of the world.
And I guess you are okay with people being denied the right to choose their leaders. And in terms of the broader Middle East, I assume you have no problem with women being denied the rights of men. You must not have a problem with honor killings, or Islamic fundamentalist intolerance, in general.
Maybe when we get to the pearly gates, St. Peter will ask you why you knew all that and still chose not to act.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:34 ambackup Says:
And I guess you are okay with people being denied the right to choose their leaders. And in terms of the broader Middle East, I assume you have no problem with women being denied the rights of men. You must not have a problem with honor killings, or Islamic fundamentalist intolerance, in general.
Maybe when we get to the pearly gates, St. Peter will ask you why you knew all that and still chose not to act.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:34 am
And then St Peter will condemn you and your moronic fu(king hero to hell for eternity , for being okay with the existence and behavior of Saudi Arabia.
You really are an enormous idiot and ignoramus ; you are so atypical of every GOP/Chimpy nut hugger.
You do not even contemplate for a nano-second , the extreme ignorance and hypocrisy you display in each and every one of your stances and posts……………….
April 30th, 2008 at 1:41 pmMCMetal Says:
You do not even contemplate for a nano-second , the extreme ignorance and hypocrisy you display in each and every one of your stances and posts……………….
It must be difficult to think with the ghosts of hundreds of thousands of innocent people crowding your mind.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:10 pm