Chirstianity

[Guest Guest]

You can type pretty good under your bed. I guess your mom brings your meals in on a tray. BTW..... I'm happy with Bush over the last 6 years, he cut my taxes, the stock market is way up, unimployment is way down, inflation is under control and he is protecting america. God bless George Bush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"unmployment(sic) is way down"?

According to Bureau of Labor statistics, in 2000, the last full year before we became afflicted with cowboyitis, the national unemployment rate wa 4.0% For 2006 the figure was 4.6%.

THAT's WAY DOWN?

Is that cowboy math or just MORE OF YOUR LIES?

Have you ever considered checking FACTS before posting your drivel?

[Guest Guest]

In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

If the U.S. didn't outsource jobs, you'd be paying about 3-4x more for the items you buy such as shoes and computers.

Or, maybe that wouldn't be necessary if CEOs weren't giving themselves millions of $ whether they were productive or not.

So we continue down this path until the US is just one giant outlet mall for Asian products? And then what?

[Guest Patriot]

Yeah, Bush is directly responsible for thousands of deaths and spending hundred$ of billion$ of $ to make the US LESS safe and YOU are happy because he cut your taxes.

What a greedy, self-serving unpatriotic piece of crap you are.

I wonder if your grandchildren will look so kindly on Bush when they're still paying for his folly?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LMAO !!! NO terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11/01. Deficit is down 30% since '04 WITH a war going on, because of a hot economy, because of Bush's tax cuts. I shudder to think where we'd be today if Gore or Kerry had been elected.

Surely there is a God and he's watching over us.

[Strife767]

Huh?  What do you mean it doesn't exist?

I mean the link is broken. You know, 404, file not found, document does not exist? It is quite literally not there. Not where the link is pointing, at least.

Just because the government took the Website down because of the nuclear weapon goof-up doesn't mean that the document doesn't exist.  I've looked at the original (in Arabic) and, iirc, another translation that matched that of j veritas.

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murd...00604100727.asp

You could look at the NYT account I linked for some corroboration, you know.

Are you trying to be funny, offering a Wikepedia (the encycopedia anyone can edit!) entry to discredit TFR?

There are sources cited there, smartass. It's not just some random rambling.

It's a misguided effort in any case.  The entry contains a complaint about some posters to TFR's Web site (the one who translated the document, you hope?), and an account of a lawsuit for allowing copyrighted material to be posted.

Feel free to suggest how any of that is relevant.

Seemingly it's just your way of justifying willful blindness to the evidence.

Heh. 

Who said anything about American soil?  Oh, that would be you.  Because you need to try to narrow it down like in your desperation to make bin Laden out to be something of a threat.

Oh, I think the people working in the twin towers on 9-11-2001 would agree that he's somewhat of a threat.

Bin Laden is so busy running that he can barely participate in a news release on an annual basis.

Ah, I see. And exactly how many deaths on American soil was Hussein responsible for from 9/11 on that he suddenly became a higher priority?

But I guess you could come back and say that he's not filming them on American soil.  That would sure show me.

Face it:  bin Laden is neutralized.

Okay, so as long as we make sure that someone who kills a few thousand Americans isn't still actively planning another attack (or at least we can convince ourselves of as much), he's off the hook. No need to capture him or give any kind of punishment--let's just make it nice and clear that anyone can come around and kill tons of people, and we won't even bother going after them anymore after a little while. All he has to do is elude capture for a few months and our attention span will fizzle out and we'll forget all about him. Great plan--that ought to strike fear in all terrorists' hearts.

That might change if Pakistan grants him some form of sanctuary.  Otherwise al Qaida planning will be done primarily by leaders somewhat down the chain of command.

And there you go jumping to conclusions.

Who said anything about lying?  Oh--that would be you again.  I simply suggest that the CIA (FBI, according to the encyclopedia anyone can edit) could be wrong, as they apparently were (along with the intelligence services of each of our allies) about Hussein's stockpiles of WMD.

Well, duh, even Bush admitted there were no WMDs. There was never a real reason to start this war in Iraq--not a good one, anyway.

Unless you think that Clinton appointed Tenet so that he could lie on the CIA's behalf to the Bush administration--or something similarly creative and outlandish?

You could read?

Okay, so if he hides in China we should send people to China to find him--regardless of how the Chinese react?

You'll make a fine foreign policy guru one day.

I see.  You're so intelligent that you would have known that the CIA, British Intelligence, French Intelligence, Italian Intelligence, Russian Intelligence, etc. were wrong? 

Wow.  Maybe I've been underestimating you.

Sure they are.  It just happens that we don't have millions of illegals crossing that border every year like we have on the southern border.

This is related to terrorism, how?

The southern border is both a security risk

Apparently not as great a security risk as the north--just ask the families of the 3k+ who died on 9/11.

and a weakness to US claims of sovereignty.  The combination magnifies its importance as a political issue (particularly in states that end up as home for illegal immigrants, including Texas and California).

Separate issue, entirely.

The northern border was not a factor in Republican political losses; nor did it figure prominently in the policies of Democrats who were elected, so far as I know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not talking about stupid "political losses," I'm talking about the losses of the lives of innocent people! Don't you see that? I don't care about politics--but I do care about humanity.

[Guest Guest]

LMAO  !!!  NO terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11/01. Deficit is down 30% since '04 WITH a war going on, because of a hot economy, because of Bush's tax cuts. I shudder to think where we'd be today if Gore or Kerry had been elected.

  Surely there is a God and he's watching over us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

YOU are truly an idiot with your voodoo economics.

Bush took office in '01 and you look at the deficit from '04? How about the INCREASE in the deficit sice he took office? Too much TRUTH and FACT for your delusional little mind?

[God Save Us From Christians]

LMAO  !!!  NO terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11/01. Deficit is down 30% since '04 WITH a war going on, because of a hot economy, because of Bush's tax cuts. I shudder to think where we'd be today if Gore or Kerry had been elected.

  Surely there is a God and he's watching over us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It really is amazing how stupid fundamentalist Christians are.

Yes, it's true, there hasn't been one terrorist attack in the US since 9/11/01.

So it's been a whole 5 years since the last one.

But, the previous terrorist attack on the US was on February 23, 1993, when the same group tried to blow up the World Trade Center.

So, let's do some math, public school style. 8 years between 1993 and 2001, 5 years between 2001 and 2006.

So, without Bush, the country was safer since there were 3 more attack free years.

And Oklahoma City wasn't a terrorist attack. It was payback by a sick individual for the government attacks on Waco and Ruby Ridge. Doesn't count.

Now, after 9/11/2001 there weren't any attacks in the USA proper. However, since then there have been at least one attack a year on US interests elsewhere:

2002

June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.

2003

May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

2004

May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.

June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.

Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.

2005

Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.

Or course, we haven't discussed Madrid, Bali, London, and other spots around the world where Islamic terrorists have operated, killing more people.

You Christians really need to keep to your Bibles, and let normal people run the country. Look what has happened since a "Fundamentalist Christian" has taken over the White House and allowed these people to run rampant through our government.

[God Save Us From Christians]

Link to web page for terrorist attacks on US and US interests.

That is if the Christians can read it. After all, it's not in the Bible.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

[Guest Guest]

LMAO  !!!  NO terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11/01. Deficit is down 30% since '04 WITH a war going on, because of a hot economy, because of Bush's tax cuts. I shudder to think where we'd be today if Gore or Kerry had been elected.

  Surely there is a God and he's watching over us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kerry said in 2005 that there weren't enough troops on the ground in Iraq. I guess that was too difficult for a pig-headed ideologue yo understand and admit.

[Guest Guest]

LMAO  !!!  NO terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11/01. Deficit is down 30% since '04 WITH a war going on, because of a hot economy, because of Bush's tax cuts. I shudder to think where we'd be today if Gore or Kerry had been elected.

  Surely there is a God and he's watching over us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For Bush to even match the economic growth Clinton achieved, the Dow will have to rise above 20000 by the time Bush's term is over. And Clinton did it with a hostile Congress and without tax cuts.

Forget all the rationalizations Bush supporters use to hail his economic prowess, just bet them a thousand dollars this does not happen. This usually tests if Bush supporters are based in reality or giddy cultist euphoria.

[Bryan]

The same arugument could be made that if we didn't have illegal immigrants we'd be paying a lot more for things like agricultural produces, etc, so by your theory illegal immigration must be a good thing too?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Immigrants, both legal and illegal, do help keep labor costs low, and thus help keep prices down.

On the other hand, illegals place a high demand on certain types of government services, such as federally mandated emergency healthcare.

The problem occurs when the economy is unable to accommodate immigration.

When there are not enough jobs to go around, or the illegals are taking jobs from citizens, then there's a real problem.

There aren't many U.S. citizens willing to do farm labor.

Yes, it's good to have enough immigration to fill lower-end jobs, but you're missing the point when you focus on the issue domestically. Trade is one of the keys to global prosperity, because trade partners can produce more efficiently than either partner individually.

So-called "outsourcing" is simply part of that process.

[Bryan]

I mean the link is broken. You know, 404, file not found, document does not exist? It is quite literally not there. Not where the link is pointing, at least.

Broken links do not make the citation irrelevant. Harder to verify, maybe, but not irrelevant.

There are sources cited there, smartass. It's not just some random rambling.

So why did you skip commenting on the part where I engaged the pathetic content from your Wikipedia reference?

Oh, I think the people working in the twin towers on 9-11-2001 would agree that he's somewhat of a threat.

Great. You can contact one or more of them and they can tell you what attacks bin Laden has organized and carried out since 9-11.

Since you can't seem to come up with any yourself.

Ah, I see. And exactly how many deaths on American soil was Hussein responsible for from 9/11 on that he suddenly became a higher priority?

Try reading one of Bush's speeches on the topic. He spells it out pretty clearly.

You can read, correct?

Here's a good place to start.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0020129-11.html

Okay, so as long as we make sure that someone who kills a few thousand Americans isn't still actively planning another attack (or at least we can convince ourselves of as much), he's off the hook.

You know that's a straw man.

The issue, before you decided to dodge again, was the priority of capturing/killing bin Laden. The U.S. continues to work toward that goal, but not as one of the top priorities.

Well, duh, even Bush admitted there were no WMDs. There was never a real reason to start this war in Iraq--not a good one, anyway.

How would President Strife have figured out Iraq's true capabilities? Phone call to Hussein?

We were on the reliability of the CIA--remember?

This is related to terrorism, how?

The first part that you ignored is related because you intimated that you would ignore Pakistan's sovereignty in your dogged hunt for bin Laden (bin Laden is a terrorist--remember?).

The second part is only dimly related to terrorism, as you first brought up Democrat gains in the government supposedly being based on the Iraq War. I pointed out other factors such as border security (Mexico) and you brought up the Canadian border for some odd reason, apparently supposing that the only issue in the elections was terrorism/Iraq or some mysterious combination of the two.

Apparently not as great a security risk as the north--just ask the families of the 3k+ who died on 9/11.

Huh. So they apparently couldn't have crossed from Mexico with similar ease. Is that what you're saying?

Separate issue, entirely.

Separate from the border as an issue with respect to Islamic terrorists, perhaps, but you had introduced the issue of presidential popularity ("Sorry--there is a reason his approval ratings went lower than Nixon's").

Bush's dip in popularity was due in no small part to his stance on illegal immigration (from Mexico, not Canada).

I'm not talking about stupid "political losses," I'm talking about the losses of the lives of innocent people! Don't you see that? I don't care about politics--but I do care about humanity.

Then why did you bring up presidential popularity?

[God Save Us From Christians]

For Bush to even match the economic growth Clinton achieved, the Dow will have to rise above 20000 by the time Bush's term is over.  And Clinton did it with a hostile Congress and without tax cuts.

Forget all the rationalizations Bush supporters use to hail his economic prowess, just bet them a thousand dollars this does not happen.  This usually tests if Bush supporters are based in reality or giddy cultist euphoria.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, more Christian Math. What do they teach kids at home school anyway?

When Clinton took Office in Jan 1992, the DJIA was between 3000 and 3500.

When he left office in Jan 2000, the DJIA was over 11,000. That's about 8,000 points higher in real math (not Christian Math).

Right now, the DJIA is about 12,500, so in the 6 years Bush was in office, the Dow rose a whole 1,500 points. Adjusting for inflation, it's actually a net loss.

But of course this is using real math, not Christian Home Schooled Baptist Math, in which 1,500 > 8,000. That's how these fundamentalists work. They believe the parts of the Bible they like, and just make up stuff about the parts they don't.

Works the same in History, Science, Astronomy, Government.

They live in their own little self-delusional world and wonder why people think they are crazy.

[Guest 2smart4u]

It really is amazing how stupid fundamentalist Christians are.

Yes, it's true, there hasn't been one terrorist attack in the US since 9/11/01.

So it's been a whole 5 years since the last one.

But, the previous terrorist attack on the US was on February 23, 1993, when the same group tried to blow up the World Trade Center.

So, let's do some math, public school style.  8 years between 1993 and 2001, 5 years between 2001 and 2006.

So, without Bush, the country was safer since there were 3 more attack free years.

And Oklahoma City wasn't a terrorist attack.  It was payback by a sick individual for the government attacks on Waco and Ruby Ridge.  Doesn't count.

Now, after 9/11/2001 there weren't any attacks in the USA proper.  However, since then there have been at least one attack a year on US interests elsewhere:

2002

June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.

2003

May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

2004

May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.

June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.

Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.

2005

Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.

Or course, we haven't discussed Madrid, Bali, London, and other spots around the world where Islamic terrorists have operated, killing more people.

You Christians really need to keep to your Bibles, and let normal people run the country.  Look what has happened since a "Fundamentalist Christian" has taken over the White House and allowed these people to run rampant through our government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And your point is ??

[God Save Us From Christians]

And your point is ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My point is that you claim that the president's actions have made the US and the world safer from terrorists. You claim that we should look to the fact that there haven't been any terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11.

Which is true.

But there weren't any attacks for 8 years before that either. Which means that Bush's actions really can't be judged at this point.

But if you look at the rest of the world, terrorist attacks have happened with alarming frequency. At least one major attack on US interests every year since 9/11.

Which means Bush's policies really aren't keeping Americans safer at all.

And i commend you for asking the question. That's the first step to understanding. Rather than relying on the old tired fallacy that "The Bible Says it, I Believe it, and that settles it!" comments, you actually asked a question about something.

congratulations, there is hope for you too.

[Guest Guest]

And your point is ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That YOU are an ASS!

[Bryan]

My point is that you claim that the president's actions have made the US and the world safer from terrorists.  You claim that we should look to the fact that there haven't been any terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11.

Which is true.

But there weren't any attacks for 8 years before that either.  Which means that Bush's actions really can't be judged at this point.

But if you look at the rest of the world, terrorist attacks have happened with alarming frequency.  At least one major attack on US interests every year since 9/11.

Which means Bush's policies really aren't keeping Americans safer at all.

You moved to that conclusion without apparently considering attacks on U.S. interests prior to 9-11.

Scratching the surface:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm

While it is difficult to quantify the results of the war on terror, it is both likely that the efforts of the Bush administration have been good for U.S. national security long-term

Libya gave up its WMD programs in the wake of the fall of Iraq. North Korea and Iran did not suddenly receive inspiration to pursue nuclear weapons at that point. Both had been working on their programs for some time. Moreover, the discovery that Pakistan was a center of dissemination of nuclear secrets was also arguably a benefit of the actions against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Most importantly, those who point to intelligence estimates stating that terrorism has been increased by the actions of the administration are taking the reports out of context.

Case in point, the NIE that was compiled last year was leaked to emphasize increased risk. Knowing that the leak was done to selectively twist the truth, Bush pushed for portions of the report to be declassifed--enough context to show that the leaks had distorted the truth.

[Guest Guest]

You moved to that conclusion without apparently considering attacks on U.S. interests prior to 9-11.

Scratching the surface:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm

While it is difficult to quantify the results of the war on terror, it is both likely that the efforts of the Bush administration have been good for U.S. national security long-term

Libya gave up its WMD programs in the wake of the fall of Iraq.  North Korea and Iran did not suddenly receive inspiration to pursue nuclear weapons at that point.  Both had been working on their programs for some time.  Moreover, the discovery that Pakistan was a center of dissemination of nuclear secrets was also arguably a benefit of the actions against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Most importantly, those who point to intelligence estimates stating that terrorism has been increased by the actions of the administration are taking the reports out of context.

Case in point, the NIE that was compiled last year was leaked to emphasize increased risk.  Knowing that the leak was done to selectively twist the truth, Bush pushed for portions of the report to be declassifed--enough context to show that the leaks had distorted the truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And how many suggestions of this esteemed Bush-appointed 9/11 commission did Bush implement?

Only people who take reality out of context would support a commander-in-chief that took history's greatest military force into a WMD-less, third-world country and get an *increasing* resistance over four years.

Greeted as liberators? Mission accomplished? WMD? Pay for itself? Cheap oil? Last throes?

And yet, the plan is working.

With all the US jobs and money going to China to implement our Star Wars plan, with Bush befriending nuke-peddling Pakistan after 9/11, with North Korea test-firing missiles, with Halliburton still doing business in Iran, with Rummy's Defense Dept selling surplus military equipment to China and Iran... all so important that we can't maintain the Intelligence team focussed on bin Laden or repeal the civilian HumVee tax credit to buy our troop body armor. No wonder people support Bush. The reality is too much to take.

Yay you.

[Bryan]

And how many suggestions of this esteemed Bush-appointed 9/11 commission did Bush implement?

Most of the good ones, and some of the bad ones.

http://grumet.net/911/recommendations.html

Only people who take reality out of context would support a commander-in-chief that took history's greatest military force into a WMD-less, third-world country and get an *increasing* resistance over four years.

You count sectarian violence as increasing resistance, eh?

Plus you're overlooking the fact that Iraq is not isolated in this war. Terrorist states Syria and Iran have actively supported/fomented unrest in Iraq.

Is that part of your reality, or not?

Greeted as liberators?

Correct, and polls from last year continued to show a majority of Iraqis thought that the overthrow of Hussein was worth it.

Is that part of your reality?

Mission accomplished?

An inappropriate sign to fly on a ship returning to the U.S. from the Persian Gulf? If it was inappropriate then why was the ship leaving the area?

WMD?  Pay for itself?  Cheap oil?  Last throes?

Some mistakes have clearly been made, but invading Iraq was not one of them. Hussein was actively working to get sanctions lifted (see Oil-for-Food scandal, among other things), and he cheated on the sanctions in order to position Iraq to return to the WMD business promptly after that (one of the primary conclusions of the Duelfer Report).

And yet, the plan is working.

Same government in power since it was established. The comparison to the early United States is not entirely unfavorable (see Shay's Rebellion).

With all the US jobs and money going to China to implement our Star Wars plan,

lol

So we're paying the Chinese to implement our Star Wars plan?

with Bush befriending nuke-peddling Pakistan after 9/11, with North Korea test-firing missiles, with Halliburton still doing business in Iran, with Rummy's Defense Dept selling surplus military equipment to China and Iran... all so important that we can't maintain the Intelligence team focussed on bin Laden or repeal the civilian HumVee tax credit to buy our troop body armor.  No wonder people support Bush.  The reality is too much to take.

You still don't have a picture of reality, based on what you write.

Pakistan wasn't confirmed as a nuke-peddling nation until after our overtures to their PM to get on board with the GWoT. After that time, Musharref's government discovered that one of their scientists was engaged in black market peddling of nuclear secrets. They collared him. Does that happen if the U.S. doesn't offer Musharref a carrot?

What tortured reasoning places blame on Bush for North Korea's missile tests? Give me a good laugh by using Jimmy Carter's rationale (the guy who left N. Korea with enough plutonium for a couple of atomic bombs under the Agreed Framework).

Halliburton is probably only doing business in Iran so that liberals won't complain about how economic sanctions are killing Iranians and making them hostile toward the United States.

Seriously, Halliburton is in the business of providing oil industry infrastructure. You want the Soviet Union selling them infrastructure instead? You want an embargo on Iranian oil, or what?

You appear to have presented the surplus military equipment issue in an attempt to distort the record.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...70117-voa01.htm

You're detached from reality.

And have you checked oil prices lately?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...EZM&refer=japan

[Guest Guest]

"Most of the good ones, and some of the bad ones." - Bryan

Your link does nothing to say what Bush has and has not implemented.

Better citation, please?

December 2005

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1205/dailyUpdate.html

Bipartisan panel gives White House, Congress 'more F's than A's' in response to their report.

August 2006

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/060...sitroom.02.html

BLITZER: It sounds like you're saying the president of the United States five years after 9/11 is not doing his job?

KEAN: I was talking about the government as a whole including the United States Congress.... We're still five years after 9/11, we're still not distributing funds to the areas that need it the most. We're not doing it according to risk.

August 2006

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html

Solomon: Do you consider the 9/11 Commission to have been a success?

Hamilton: Our... task was to make recommendations; thus far, about half of our recommendations have been enacted into law, the other half have not been enacted. So we've got a ways to go. In a quantitative sense, we’ve had about 50% success there. In a qualitative sense, you could judge it many different ways. But we still have some very important recommendations that we think have not yet been enacted that should be.

***

"You count sectarian violence as increasing resistance, eh?" - Bryan

Your point is that I should see that everything is going to plan then?

Jan 21, 2007

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/CrisesArti...d-R5-Alertnet-4

Costly day in Iraq as 20 U.S. troops killed

***

"Plus you're overlooking the fact that Iraq is not isolated in this war. Terrorist states Syria and Iran have actively supported/fomented unrest in Iraq. Is that part of your reality, or not?" -Byran

Your sources for this, please?

Jan 19, 2007

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bull...etin_070119.htm

Secretary of State Colin Powell said Vice President Dick Cheney rejected "an Iranian offer to help the United States stabilize Iraq and end its military support for Hezbollah and Hamas" in 2003.

Dec 14, 2006

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1971581,00.html

If US leaves Iraq we will arm Sunni militias, Saudis say.

***

"Polls from last year continued to show a majority of Iraqis thought that the overthrow of Hussein was worth it." - Bryan

Citation, please?

Jan 3, 2007

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=4320

Iraqis say they were better off under rule of Saddam Hussein

***

Re: "Mission accomplished."

"An inappropriate sign to fly on a ship returning to the U.S. from the Persian Gulf? If it was inappropriate then why was the ship leaving the area?" -Bryan

So the "Mission" was just for the USS Lincoln to return to the US? Silly me. I thought it was more than that.

May 2003

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country." - G. W. Bush

Jan 2007

"There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship." - G. W. Bush

***

Re: WMD? Pay for itself? Cheap oil? Last throes?

"Some mistakes have clearly been made, but invading Iraq was not one of them. Hussein was actively working to get sanctions lifted (see Oil-for-Food scandal, among other things), and he cheated on the sanctions in order to position Iraq to return to the WMD business promptly after that (one of the primary conclusions of the Duelfer Report)" - Bryan

Perhaps it is just a difference in taste, but I would rather have sent 130,000 troops and a few hundred billion dollars in pursuit of bin Laden. Remember that 9/11 thing?

July 2006

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,,1812598,00.html

Nearly five years after George Bush vowed to bring Osama bin Laden to justice "dead or alive", it's the end of the line for the CIA's Alec Station, the unit dedicated to the hunt for the al-Qaida leader.

***

Re: And yet, the plan is working?

"Same government in power since it was established. The comparison to the early United States is not entirely unfavorable (see Shay's Rebellion)."

That's great and all, but if we're going to do some rebuilding, could it be in the US?

Shay's rebellion was limited to a few hundred rebels and few deaths and spanned a short period between 1786 and 1787. If you mean Iraq is like Shay's Rebellion with more deaths every month for the past four years with no end in sight, I see what you mean. Bravo.

***

"So we're paying the Chinese to implement our Star Wars plan?" - Bryan

No, we're sending them money so they can implement *their* Star Wars plan.

We just thought of it first, hence "ours."

Jan 2007

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jan19/0,4...inaTest,00.html

U.S. Criticizes China Over Missile Test

***

"Pakistan wasn't confirmed as a nuke-peddling nation until after our overtures to their PM to get on board with the GWoT. After that time, Musharref's government discovered that one of their scientists was engaged in black market peddling of nuclear secrets. They collared him." - Bryan

Citation please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan

In January 2004, he confessed to having been involved in a clandestine international network of nuclear weapons technology proliferation from Pakistan to Libya, Iran and North Korea. On February 5, 2004, the President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, announced that he had pardoned Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan.

***

"What tortured reasoning places blame on Bush for North Korea's missile tests?" - Bryan

OK I'll be fair. When was the last time a US President failed to keep N Korea from testing a nuclear weapon?

And didn't we invade Iraq because they had mere *intentions* to get nuclear weapons? Bush's response to N Korea was what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_a...ass_destruction

***

"Halliburton is probably only doing business in Iran so that liberals won't complain about how economic sanctions are killing Iranians and making them hostile toward the United States." - Bryan

Wow. That anti-hostility thing is working out so well.

"Seriously, Halliburton is in the business of providing oil industry infrastructure. You want the Soviet Union selling them infrastructure instead? You want an embargo on Iranian oil, or what?" -Bryan

I see. We can sell oil services to Iran, but we can't sell medicine to Cuba.

I'm sure none of that Iranian oil money is going to state-funded terrorism.

Good point.

***

"You appear to have presented the surplus military equipment issue in an attempt to distort the record." - Bryan

Distort what record?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...70117-voa01.htm

Report Says US Military Equipment Gets to Iran, China

The most prominent recent case involving China was in 2003. (Rummy time and post-9/11.)

Another American company was convicted of selling hundreds of containers of U.S. military technology items to China in the 1990s. Those sales stopped in 1999.

The surplus military sales return tens of millions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury every year. (Ooh. So worth it.)

***

"And have you checked oil prices lately?" - Bryan

And your point is?

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflati...rices_Table.asp

Annual Average Crude Oil Prices

Year Avg Inflation adjusted

1990 $23.19 $35.91

1991 $20.20 $30.10

1992 $19.25 $27.84

1993 $16.75 $23.54

1994 $15.66 $21.43

1995 $16.75 $22.31

1996 $20.46 $26.45

1997 $18.64 $23.57

1998 $11.91 $14.83

1999 $16.56 $20.12

2000 $27.39 $32.26

2001 $23.00 $26.37

2002 $22.81 $25.71

2003 $27.69 $30.55

2004 $37.66 $40.42

2005 $50.04 $51.94

2006 $60.40 $60.78

***

Come on Bryan. You can do better than this!

Dig deep. I want to see what a real Bush supporter believes.

Jan 13, 2007

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01...ed-to-tell.html

As President Bush marched the country to war with Iraq, even some voices on the Right warned that this was a fool's errand. I dismissed them angrily. I thought them unpatriotic.

[Guest Keith -Marshall,Mo]

Most of the good ones, and some of the bad ones.

http://grumet.net/911/recommendations.html

You count sectarian violence as increasing resistance, eh?

Plus you're overlooking the fact that Iraq is not isolated in this war.  Terrorist states Syria and Iran have actively supported/fomented unrest in Iraq.

Is that part of your reality, or not?

Correct, and polls from last year continued to show a majority of Iraqis thought that the overthrow of Hussein was worth it.

Is that part of your reality?

An inappropriate sign to fly on a ship returning to the U.S. from the Persian Gulf?  If it was inappropriate then why was the ship leaving the area?

Some mistakes have clearly been made, but invading Iraq was not one of them.  Hussein was actively working to get sanctions lifted (see Oil-for-Food scandal, among other things), and he cheated on the sanctions in order to position Iraq to return to the WMD business promptly after that (one of the primary conclusions of the Duelfer Report).

Same government in power since it was established.  The comparison to the early United States is not entirely unfavorable (see Shay's Rebellion).

lol

So we're paying the Chinese to implement our Star Wars plan?

You still don't have a picture of reality, based on what you write.

Pakistan wasn't confirmed as a nuke-peddling nation until after our overtures to their PM to get on board with the GWoT.  After that time, Musharref's government discovered that one of their scientists was engaged in black market peddling of nuclear secrets.  They collared him.  Does that happen if the U.S. doesn't offer Musharref a carrot?

What tortured reasoning places blame on Bush for North Korea's missile tests?  Give me a good laugh by using Jimmy Carter's rationale (the guy who left N. Korea with enough plutonium for a couple of atomic bombs under the Agreed Framework).

Halliburton is probably only doing business in Iran so that liberals won't complain about how economic sanctions are killing Iranians and making them hostile toward the United States.

Seriously, Halliburton is in the business of providing oil industry infrastructure.  You want the Soviet Union selling them infrastructure instead?  You want an embargo on Iranian oil, or what?

You appear to have presented the surplus military equipment issue in an attempt to distort the record.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...70117-voa01.htm

You're detached from reality.

And have you checked oil prices lately?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...EZM&refer=japan

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually that "ship" wasn't going anywhere at all. It was in port in thge US and was taken out to sea a few miles just for "GW's Mission Accomplished Flight Suit Wearing Photo Op". The ship wasn't coming from the gulf or going anywhere else, at least at that time. It was all a set-up.

[God Save Us From Christians]

Some mistakes have clearly been made, but invading Iraq was not one of them.  Hussein was actively working to get sanctions lifted (see Oil-for-Food scandal, among other things), and he cheated on the sanctions in order to position Iraq to return to the WMD business promptly after that (one of the primary conclusions of the Duelfer Report).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, you're missing the facts.

The Oil Sanctions against Iraq had one purpose - to prevent Iraq from making oil concessions to France and Russia. We wanted the oil in the US at favorable terms.

People forget that Iraq is sitting on an estimated 3 BILLION barrels of oil in reserves, and we need that to fuel our economy.

Saddam was going to make deals with Total - the French company - for leases rather than make deals with ExxonMobil and BP.

BP, British Petroleum, used to be called Kuwaiti Oil. Saddam has no love for the British or Americans due to English interference in the region, hence his desire to make deals with France.

Why was France so against the invasion? They wanted the oil leases.

This is all documented. Especially the part of Cheney and his aides poring over oil maps of Iraq before the invasion, with the names of US oil companies strategically placed.

The war has nothing to do with democracy, WMD, freedom, or any of that.

They have oil, we need oil. The US supplies are dwindling, China is sucking up more and more of the world's supply and we need oil.

Was it a coincidence that the POTUS and VPOTUS are both Texas Oil Men?

Delude yourself with noble aims for the war, but it's all about oil.

Both Saddam and Kim Jung Il were accused of harboring and producing WMD. Yet North Korea actually had them and we ignored it.

Why?

North Korea doesn't have any oil.

Plain and simple.

[Bryan]

Actually that "ship" wasn't going anywhere at all. It was in port in thge US and was taken out to sea a few miles just for "GW's Mission Accomplished Flight Suit Wearing Photo Op". The ship wasn't coming from the gulf or going anywhere else, at least at that time. It was all a set-up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Carrier Air Wing 11, assigned to the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz, announced that it was lending four of its F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 14, currently aboard USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), to provide a mix of fighter/tanker capabilities to support coalition forces on the ground in Iraq. The first day, the Super Hornets will fly 1,700 miles with drop tanks and be refueled from tankers aboard Nimitz. The second leg of the trip will be 2,300 miles long and involve an in-flight refueling before the Super Hornets will touch down aboard Lincoln."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops...freedom_d12.htm

"Story Number: NNS030414-07

Release Date: 4/14/2003 2:12:00 PM

By Chief Journalist (SW) Tim Paynter, Navy Region Hawaii Public Affairs

PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii (NNS) -- Following images of liberated Iraqis in Baghdad April 9, news quickly broke that the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) Battle Group was relieved by the USS Nimitz (CVN 68) Battle Group, and the ships of the Lincoln Battle Group were headed home after one of the longest naval deployments since the Vietnam War."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...30414-nns01.htm

Here's a transcipt from CNN interviews with the crew after it arrived at its home port. Note that the sailors refer to the Bush visit as an event in the past.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/06/se.05.html

"CORONADO, California (AP) -- More than 70 aircraft left the USS Abraham Lincoln on Wednesday for Navy bases along the West Coast, as the first sailors from the aircraft carrier returned to the United States.

A crew of more than 5,000 remains aboard the Lincoln, awaiting a visit from President Bush, who will address the nation Thursday evening from its deck. The 1,100-foot ship will dock May 6 at its home port of Everett, Wash."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/04/30/linc...g.ap/index.html

Bush landed on the ship on May 1, days before it reached its home port in Washington.

You could have counted Hawaii as the ship's homecoming. Why didn't you think of that?

"USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) entering Pearl Harbor, 26 April 2003, on her way home from Operation Iraqi Freedom."

http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/72a.htm

The time line (along with home port in Washington state) makes your claim look pretty silly, Keith.

[Bryan]

One more for Keith:

"Miranda Frederick, a sailor aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, holds up her son, Elijah, 10-months-old, after the Lincoln returned home from the war in Iraq Friday May 2, 2003 in San Diego. (AP PHoto/Chris Carlson)"

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/lincoln/subc...2&PicsPerPage=8

Add that one to the time line and then go hang your head in shame for messing up your facts so badly.

[Bryan]

Again, you're missing the facts.

The Oil Sanctions against Iraq had one purpose - to prevent Iraq from making oil concessions to France and Russia.  We wanted the oil in the US at favorable terms.

Most of the Food-for-Oil contracts went to those states.

Moreover, it doesn't really matter who gets the oil. It's a global market, so no matter who gets it, the price changes when the oil gets to market.

Your theory gets an "F" for plausibility.

The exploration-rights deals dangled in front of France and Russia accounted in large part for their opposition to the actions proposed by the U.S. and the British--that and the fact that France and Russia were owed the most money by Hussein (for weapons purchases, FWIW: French jets and Russian tanks).

http://lugar.senate.gov/reports/oilforfood.pdf

http://www.odiousdebts.org/odiousdebts/ind...ContentID=11619

People forget that Iraq is sitting on an estimated 3 BILLION barrels of oil in reserves, and we need that to fuel our economy.

The whole world needs that oil for the economy (it's a global economy).

Saddam was going to make deals with Total - the French company - for leases rather than make deals with ExxonMobil and BP.

And in return, the French went to bat for Hussein in the UN Security Council.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...18/ixworld.html

BP, British Petroleum, used to be called Kuwaiti Oil.  Saddam has no love for the British or Americans due to English interference in the region, hence his desire to make deals with France.

That's a laugh. Hussein was cozy with the French for years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_i...omacy/58568.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...23000-1796r.htm

Why was France so against the invasion?  They wanted the oil leases.

Partly correct. They also wanted Iraq to pay for the weapons they sold to Iraq on credit.

Aren't the French wonderful?

This is all documented.  Especially the part of Cheney and his aides poring over oil maps of Iraq before the invasion, with the names of US oil companies strategically placed.

It's certainly not documented by you.

In fact, I believe that you have your facts confused.

Cheney's energy task force considered a map of Iraq and list of names for foreign suitors for Iraqi oilfield contracts.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...ING0H5LTDA1.DTL

The war has nothing to do with democracy, WMD, freedom, or any of that.

Why didn't we go into Nigeria instead, then?

Again, the U.S. still gets the benefit from oil that reaches the world market, regardless of the destination (French oil companies sell gasoline in the US at market prices).

They have oil, we need oil.  The US supplies are dwindling, China is sucking up more and more of the world's supply and we need oil.

Something tells me you're not counting the ANWR oilfields or the new massive reserves located in the Gulf of Mexico.

Basically, you don't know what you're talking about.

You don't know how the energy economy works (at all), so you subscribe to nutcase theories about global politics.

Iraq was deemed a security risk--with good reason even if the expected WMD stockpiles didn't turn up.

Was it a coincidence that the POTUS and VPOTUS are both Texas Oil Men?

In the sense you intend to convey, almost certainly yes.

Delude yourself with noble aims for the war, but it's all about oil.

The US was getting quite a bit of Iraq's oil throughout the sanctions regime. Oil is part of the picture because radical Islamists can bring wreck the world economy with an embargo (especially if they pal up with Venezuela). We're talking about the potential for joblessness and starvation in the Western world that hasn't been seen since the Great Depression.

But don't worry--I'm sure the radical Islamists will make sure we're all fine.

Both Saddam and Kim Jung Il were accused of harboring and producing WMD. Yet North Korea actually had them and we ignored it.

Why?

Because of Iraq's incredibly bad track record compared to KJ Il's only bad track record--plus the fact that we've already got a military presence nearby that keeps him in check.

North Korea doesn't have any oil.

Plus none of the 9-11 hijackers were from the continental Far East.

Sorry if that doesn't jibe with your wacko oil theory.

Oil is part of the picture since the global economy runs on oil. The other part of the picture is the cultural conflict that has emerged between radical Islamists and everybody else (India, Russia, Netherlands, France, Australia, Philippines, etc.).

That, of course, is your cue to light the incense, close your eyes and repeat to yourself determinedly: "It's all about the oil ... it's all about the oil."

[Plain and simple.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Simple in the sense of idiotic, maybe.

It's not simple in terms of parsimony, however.

[Guest Patriot]

Actually that "ship" wasn't going anywhere at all. It was in port in thge US and was taken out to sea a few miles just for "GW's Mission Accomplished Flight Suit Wearing Photo Op". The ship wasn't coming from the gulf or going anywhere else, at least at that time. It was all a set-up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

God bless our President and Commander-in-Chief, George Bush.