Chirstianity

[Guest Guest]

In a typically off-point attempt to justify his views on Irag Bryan writes:

"Then how do you explain the fact that 9-11 was perpetrated by terrorists while Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism?"

Since he apparently likes stupid questions I'll accomodate him using State Department dsignated state sponsors of terrorism.

How do you explain the fact that 9/11 was perpetrated by terrorists while Cuba was a state sponsor of terrorism yet Cuba wasn't invaded?

How do you explain the fact that 9/11 was perpetrated by terrorists while Iran was a state sponsor of terrorism yet Iran wasn't invaded?

How do you explain the fact that 9/11 was perpetrated by terrorists while North Korea was a state sponsor of terrorism yet North Korea wasn't invaded?

How do you explain the fact that 9/11 was perpetrated by terrorists while Sudan was a state sponsor of terrorism yet Sudan wasn't invaded?

How do you explain the fact that 9/11 was perpetrated by terrorists while Syria was a state sponsor of terrorism yet Syria wasn't invaded?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a brain on drugs. (correction: it's no longer a brain, it's a bowl of Jell-O).

[Bryan]

ALLEGED DECEPTION?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

If you really can't see it you're INCREDIBLY BLIND!

Bush has CONTINUALLY tried to tie Iraq to 9/11 where there IS NO CONNECTION!

The DECEPTION is the his trying to make a case for HIS Iraq policy using the public's thirst to avenge the 9/11 attacks, attacks with NO TIES to SADDAM.  His pandering to people's bloodlust and the facts be damned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're an idiot.

Read this.

http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/WhenOsamaBe...dam-Althaus.pdf

It probably won't cure you, but it may keep you quiet for awhile.

[Bryan]

Guilt by association?  He is known to have been a member of a party commiting acts of terror against the US and you defend him?

Uh, yes, it's guilt by association.

John Kerry was a member of a group that planned that planned treasonous acts against the U.S. government.

You need more than group affiliation for the point to be significant--and you have notably ignored the bulk of my reply (Maliki duly elected in a constitutional republic, with no guarantee of consolidated power).

Yet you justify the Iraq invasion because they were state sponsors of terror?

You're spinning again.

I justified the connection between 9-11 and Iraq because Iraq was a state sponsor of terror. That's the connection, and that's how it has always been presented by the administration. The invasion was justified on numerous grounds (not just the terrorism connection), which were also emphasized from the first by the administration.

Is your picture in the Hypocrites Hall of Fame?  It should be.

On the basis of your illogical fairy-tale treatment of my argument? You give your spin ability too much credit.

What good is a democratically elected hater of the US?  We were safer with Saddam in power.

What evidence of Maliki's US hatred to you have other than the bombing incident disavowed by the Dawa party?

If they hated the US that much, wouldn't they be proud of the bombing?

Face it: if al-Maliki didn't have this faint guilt-by-association you'd be painting him as a pawn of the US government instead of its enemy.

IF he fails in the next year or two?  Why wasn't something being done the last two-three years?

Fallacy of the complex question.

Something was being done. It didn't work as planned. Al-Maliki is partly to blame for sheltering al-Sadr.

If one city takes longer to pacify than all of WWII something is seriously wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We're less willing to nuke cities these days.

I thought you preferred it that way.

[Bryan]

THAT has to be one of THE MOST STUPID things I've seen written on this board.

By your logic one could ask "Then how do you explain the fact that Oklahoma City was perpetrated by terrorists while Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism?"  YOU must think Saddam was behind that too.

You missed the point.

It would waste my time to try to explain it to you if blundered into this asinine interpretation of what I wrote.

The lack of critical thinking has left you with nothing but straw men to play with.

[Guest Guest]

"And N. Korea might still be testing in secret without the invasion of Iraq. You just wouldn't know about it."

And the North Koreans could also be dancing on the moon. What is the connection between our invasion and North Korea?

"Al-Qaeda is no longer the hierarchical organisation that it was before 9/11. Three-quarters of its senior leaders have been killed or captured," the official said.

Condi Rice tried to pulled this crap a few years ago. At a press conference she said that 3/4 of Al-Qaeda's senior leaders had been neutralized. A reporter asked her for a number and she stumbled. She couldn't explain what the total number of leaders was and what 3/4 of that would be. Does Al-Qaeda call her every time one of their leaders goes missing? Come on.

"Do we point out all the dumb ideas that Democrats have had under Bush's watch, too? I don't see the point of this one."

The "He did it, too" defence was given up by most people by the age of six.

"Oh, now I see the point. You misreported the facts.

Frist suggested that the Taliban should be courted to participate in Afghanistan's government.

If they're willing to do that, it presents the possibility of ending violence in Afghanistan now and helping to moderate the radicals.

The same thing is being tried in Iraq with al-Sadr's militia--and I'm pretty sure that Democrats have been behind the idea."

Frist suggested that terrorists should be made part of the government. Oh, wait a minute. Aren't we fighting against "terror"?

"Under Bush's watch, of course, so naturally it's his fault. *snicker*"

Maybe we should blame the Pope for this. Bush's job was to defend us. He didn't. Thousands died.

"And, using the logic you used here, you could have blamed whoever is in office when the next rogue nation goes nuclear."

If he/she is as incompetent as Bush, yes.

You keep hitting at the fact that "Guest" is hiding behind anonymity. "Guest" gives me as much information about the person as the name Bryan does about you. Anyone can make up a screen name-I did, but you still have no idea who I am.

[Bryan]

OK Bryan, let my Bush re-education begin...

Let's review a significant comment I ended with, first:

I'd love to see you post other than anonymously and defend your misleading and (frankly) idiotic use of the data. I'm sure I'll be kept waiting.

Typical Fever Swamp tactic is to keep changing the subject.

"Most of the preparation for the 9/11 attacks happened under Clinton's watch" - Bryan

Right. It was *Clinton's* fault that Bush did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to counter terrorism in his first nine months and decided to take August off prior to 9/11 despite a PDB that said "Bin Laden determined to strike US." I see... Thanks.

Guest is changing the subject already. He avoids the truth of the matter, that the 9-11 attacks were mostly planned under Clinton's watch (as well as the Cole attack), focuses entirely on Bush's supposed inaction leading up to 9-11. Bush was planning a more comprehensive answer to terrorism on the part of the government.

It's very easy now to take a warning and say that it is significant, but the intelligence services intercept huge amounts of such information, then work to separate what means something from that which means nothing. The quotation above might seem significant if it were a prominent noise in the overall (even though it doesn't say anything like "Bin Laden determined to strike US in September").

It's unlikely that any president would have changed the outcome leading to 9-11 in the wake of the 2000 elections. Perhaps if Clinton had taken custody of bin Laden from the Sudanese it would have been different--but we'll never know.

Persons blinded by Bush hatred think they know, however.

Using your logic, most of the build-up of Saddam happened under Rumsfeld and Cheney, who Bush hired again. That must be a stroke of genius we mere mortals cannot fathom.

The build-up of Saddam in the 1980s helped keep the Iran created by Carter's ineptitude in check (the USSR and France were the chief military suppliers, however).

"Along with the USS Cole attack. It was Clinton's mishandling of N. Korea (via Carter's uber-stupid Agreed Framework) that led to N. Korea's nuclear testing." - Bryan

Yes! It is *Clinton's* fault that Bush did NOTHING in response to the Oct 2000 USS Cole attack and that N Korea unlocked the plutonium (which was under lock and key under Clinton) in late 2002.

And likewise it is apparently Bush's fault that Clinton did nothing in response to the Cole attack.

Funny how you whine when your own tactics are used against you.

Significant amounts of plutonium were never accounted for with Carter's genius plan. Estimated sufficient for at least two warheads. North Korea admitted that they had been cheating on the Agreed Framework for years. Clinton apparently had no idea. Now Korea has the plutonium and uranium enrichment thanks to the reactors provided by Carter's plan.

They were stupid to trust North Korea. But you can't admit that because you need to focus on your Bush hatred.

"You don't just wake up one day and do a nuclear test, champ. It takes years of research and preparation." - Bryan

Or you can just buy the technology from Pakistan's AQ Khan.

Right. Starting in approximately 1997.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/static/np..._Chronology.pdf

See page six.

Clinton was president, but since Bush was governor of Texas it was probably Bush's fault. Or am I wrong?

"And N. Korea might still be testing in secret without the invasion of Iraq. You just wouldn't know about it." - Bryan

Silly me. I thought nuclear blasts registered seismic activity that is impossible to hide. Maybe you have better information on that?

Pardon me for using "testing" as a synonym for "researching." Obviously you took it to refer to detonations, which is not what I was referring to.

I'm talking about a continuation of the work started shortly after the Agreed Framework went into effect. It is now estimated that the N. Koreans started their illegal research in 1996 or so. I'll let you check to see who was president (since it's so important to you who's in office when things happen).

"[AQ Khan was] Pardoned by whom? Bush? Make me laugh." - Bryan

Wow. You must have reading skills beyond us mere mortals, because I thought nowhere in the article did it say Bush pardoned anyone.

Use your own reading skills and figure out where it was suggested that you named the one who pardoned Khan. I asked you who pardoned him, and you still haven't answered. I know who pardoned him. After you figure it out, you can try to explain to me how it's an indictment of Bush's presidency.

That's not the way emptyheaded liberals work however. They prefer to just blurt out something that they think sounds significant. They excel at failing to back up their arguments.

So you agree that AQ Khan should be pardoned? Please explain to unintelligent little me why I, as a good American, should support this.

By all means, fight it.

Run over to Pakistan with some protest signs and give 'em a piece of your mind.

We invaded Iraq for far less.

The depth of your ignorance is staggering.

Iraq was breaking a ceasefire agreement, repeatedly. There's no remote parallel to Pakistan, where our nation counts on cooperation from the Pakistanis in fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

They're not the greatest allies, but they're better than they would be if we attacked them for pardoning Khan.

Feel free to say what you think we should have done to Pakistan.

I won't wait up, because those rare instances when liberals get foreign policy ideas tend to correspond to instances where liberals have stupid ideas.

"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." - GW Bush

"The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

-WJ Clinton

"For almost a decade nations have stood together to keep the Iraqi regime from threatening its people and the world with such weapons. Despite all the obstacles Saddam Hussein has placed in our path, we must continue to ease the suffering of the people of Iraq. At the same time, we cannot allow the government of Iraq to flout 40 -- and I say 40 -- successive U.N. Security Council resolutions, and to rebuild his arsenal.

Just as important is the challenge of keeping deadly weapons away from terrorist groups."

-WJ Clinton

http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/99_059.htm

"We may never have found out about AQ Khan without attacking Iraq. That way, he needs no pardon and goes right on assisting rogue nations with nuclear secrets peddled on the black market. Wouldn't that be great?" - Bryan

So we attack WMD-less Iraq so nuke peddler AQ Khan can get pardoned. As you say, "Great!"

So Guest dodges the issue again.

Khan never gets caught, period. With the pardon, at least there's some presumption that his activities are arrested and curtained. In the other case, that's unlikely.

But those Bush-hating glasses are great for helping you ignore the positive in favor of dwelling on a negative that Bush had no realistic chance to alter.

Unless you're in favor of the all-out attack? Or maybe threatening Pakistan with a nuclear strike? I suppose that could have prevented the Khan pardon ...

"And, using the logic you used here, you could have blamed whoever is in office when the next rogue nation goes nuclear." - Bryan

You are totally correct. In fact, I'd much rather be flaming Gore or Kerry over this. By *your* logic, *you* would be defending them.

I'm consistent in not placing blame on somebody just because they happen to be in office. Placing blame like that is stupid.

North Korea obtained its weapons because of stupid diplomacy, though, in particular Carter's Agreed Framework (which Clinton apparently wasn't all that happy about).

I don't forget about the role of Congress, either. You've already shown an ability to forget about Congress, with your blaming Bush for Saudi Arabia's rumblings about supporting Sunnis in Iraq.

"[saudi Arabia's threat to support Sunni violence is] Contingent on the 'phased withdrawal' ideas now being successfully advanced by the left (and a few from the right)." - Bryan

I see. By your logic, as a good American I should be listening to Saudi Arabia and not the majority of Americans (all of the left and some of the right).

Fallacy of the false dilemma (in conjunction with another straw man version of my logic).

You simply have to realize the consequences of the strategies you support. Pull out of Iraq without a stable government and you leave a Turkey nervous about the Kurds and willing to encroach on Iraqi territory to protect its interests and deny the existence of a Kurdistan, and aggressive Iran to the east, and a minority Sunni regme to the south that isn't going to like a new Shia-dominated (Iran-aligned) neighbor to the north.

The stated policies of the Democrats (Lieberman and one or two others excepted) lead to a very high probability of a destabilized Middle East with the most likely prospect of stabilization under radical Iranian control.

The Dems have no answer. But they'll be happy to accept the votes of those who find no answer an acceptable political platform.

"You'd have Saudi Arabia just sit back and let the Shiite majority go genocidal on the Sunnis, I guess." - Bryan

Not really, but then again I think there was less violence under Hussein than there is now.

You didn't buy those UN reports of hundreds of thousands of dying children, then?

http://www.zmag.org/edwinthalliday.htm

But maybe starving children don't count as violence in your book.

Please tell us why it's far better for the US to be caught in the middle of Iraq's increasing sectarian violence.

Because radical Iranians are far less likely to be able to extort the world with nuclear weapons and economic ruin (potentially creating a new great depression worldwide), and because running away to allow a genocide to proceed would be morally wrong.

"You know how to sift the news, but you seem to lack the ability to think about the news." - Bryan

That's why I continue to triple-effing DARE you to enlighten me on why Bush supporters like you are so smart.

I learn so much from you guys.

We'll see. (turns out he learned nothing other than how to fulfill my prediction that he'd continually change the subject)

"[The closure of the CIA/FBI team focussed on Osama bin Laden] Makes sense to me. What's your objection? You find it politically comforting to think of a 'Bin Laden Team'?" - Bryan

Um... Yes?

Fine, then. I'll start up a "Bin Laden Team" and we'll concentrate on Bin Laden so you can feel better. Cool?

Obviously there can be no Bush-sanctioned situation where withdrawal is OK before getting the job done. So tell us where and when we caught Osama bin Laden please?

Again, you seem to have trouble understanding the news.

Bin Laden has been neutralized in his role as al Qaida's leader. He spends his time trying to stay alive instead of planning attacks and hobnobbing with other terrorist leaders.

Intelligence resources are better spend on those involved in planning and carrying out attacks.

Bin Laden's hiding place is apparently on the border of Pakistan--a sensitive area for US operations. It makes the most sense to keep working in Afghanistan with special ops while trying to get sufficient cooperation from Pakistan to finally grab bin Laden.

The reward money alone keeps tremendous pressure on him.

"Do you know what Halliburton does?" - Bryan

Make money off no-bid contracts?

That's pretty close to being a "no."

Halliburton does jobs for which it has little or no competition. Exactly the type of thing where a no-bid contract is a great idea since there's no sense in accepting bids when there's only one bidder.

"Can you explain the sense of unilateral sanctions (where one country refuses to trade in a commodity that is available from somebody else)?" - Bryan

So you think we *should* be doing business with a state sponsor of terrorism. Ah...

So do you. You just won't admit it right now because you think you made some kind of clever point.

Should Iraq have been cut off completely from trade until it complied completely with UN sanctions (as a state sponsor of terrorism)?

The US and other nations sent food to Iraq (for oil). Big mistake? Let the children starve, you think?

Re: - Senate majority leader Frist suggests alliance with Taliban under Bush's watch.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217198,00.html

"Do we point out all the dumb ideas that Democrats have had under Bush's watch, too? I don't see the point of this one." -Bryan

uh... good point?

"Oh, now I see the point. You misreported the facts." - Bryan

Sorry, my bad. What part of my "Senate majority leader Frist suggests alliance with Taliban under Bush's watch." is untrue? Please show how one of us is apparently illiterate.

"Frist suggested that the Taliban should be courted to participate in Afghanistan's government. If they're willing to do that, it presents the possibility of ending violence in Afghanistan now and helping to moderate the radicals. The same thing is being tried in Iraq with al-Sadr's militia--and I'm pretty sure that Democrats have been behind the idea. Under Bush's watch, of course, so naturally it's his fault. *snicker*" - Bryan

So, Frist sees increasing violence in Bush's Iraq and suggests negotiating with terrorists in Afghanistan. Who's side are you on? Bush or Frist?

There's no point in responding to you if you can't read. It's not an alliance with the Taliban, and it's nothing to do with violence in Iraq.

"[bush] didn't put the 9/11 Commission together (Bush opposed the formation of the Commission, relenting after a time with some reluctance), and you're misrepresenting the facts again." -Bryan

Enlighten me on why Bush would be opposed to investigating the largest terrorist attack on the US,

He thought it would turn into a blame game (he was right). And he wasn't opposed to an investigation. He was opposed to setting up a special commission to do the investigation.

You have an impressive gift for continually ignoring important details.

and who put the commission together if he had nothing to do with it.

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

Congress put the commission together. Bush approved it.

And we should all be asking why anyone pays attention to the commission's recommendations since such recommendations were not part of the commission's mandate.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/107-306.htm

"Many of the 9/11 Commission's suggestions have been implemented (including some dumb ones), and many have not. The recommendations should be considered individually as part of an overall strategy, not lumped together as an all-or-nothing based on the 9-11 Commission's seal of approval."

Where in the 9/11 commission comments does it propose an all-or-nothing approach? I thought they were criticizing Bush's overall strategy.

You're the one who appeared distressed that not all of the suggestions had been implemented, and it was to you that I referred.

Re: Iraqis Say They Were Better Off Under Hussein

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/14282

"It's certain that some would have preferred Hussein. The vast majority of those would be the Sunnis who had a pretty good deal under Hussein." - Bryan

That's like saying white people had a better deal in South Africa under white rule despite a black majority. Um, Good one!

Thanks. But you act as though you don't understand it, nonetheless.

"The key bit of info (the type of thing Bush-haters tend to miss because of the miasma of Bush-hatred floating in their field of vision): Methodology: Face-to-face interviews with 2,000 Iraqi adults in Baghdad, Anbar and Najaf. How many northern Kurds were represented in that poll, you think? You're aware that the poll was conducted in the worst parts of Iraq? Clearly that poll is not representative of Iraq as a whole. Broad polls indicate that Iraqis feel that getting rid of Hussein was worth it." - Bryan

Hussein had no control over the Kurdish North.

Not as much since the Gulf War, no. You suggest a permanent no-fly zone in northern Iraq? Regardless, all of Iraq was under Hussein prior to the Gulf War, so the Kurds can offer a relevant opinion on their preferences.

And so could Shiites from outside the areas dominated by Sunnis who would not have been queried by the pollsters you cited (another of your evasions).

Why should they be polled? You might as well ask me about the Canadian PM. Enlighten me on the relationship between the Kurds and Hussein, because I thought the Kurds won their freedom from Hussein years ago.

"http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf" - Bryan

Your ignorance is appalling.

In northern Iraq, the government is continuing its campaign of forcibly deporting Kurdish and Turkomen families to southern governorates. As a result of these forced deportations, approximately 900,000 citizens are internally displaced throughout Iraq. Local officials in the south have ordered the arrest of any official or citizen who provides employment, food or shelter to newly arriving Kurds.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm

In the report *you* site, here are some tidbits.

Thought you'd change the topic, eh? Big surprise. Remember that poll you cited in support of your claim that the majority of Iraqis preferred things under Hussein?

"Seven in ten Iraqis want US-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year."

"Support for attacks on US-forces has grown to a majority position - now six in ten."

So they're saying it was kind of worth it, now get the "F" out!

It's not that simple. There are factions in play, so the results need to be broken down according to faction. For example, the Sunnis can't stand the US, but many have come to realize they'll get a fairer shake with the US than with the Kurds or the Shiites that they oppressed for years.

Oh, and you're a weasel for conveniently forgetting about your false claim and misleading poll citation.

It's big of you to want to commit US forces to such attitudes. I should be as understanding as you.

You should at least admit that the study I cited contradicted the claim that you rested on a poll that could not support what you said.

As predicted, you decided to change the topic instead.

Your humanitarian impulse is apparently to let them kill each other regardless of the potentially disastrous effects on the world economy.

Re: "Mission Accomplished? WMD? Pay for itself? Greeted as liberators? 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)" - Byran

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? Enlighten me on why we went after Saddam and not bin Laden?

We did go after bin Laden. Cast your mind back. Remember Afghanistan?

Now bin Laden has been neutralized as a threat, but he hasn't been brought to justice.

The fallacy of the false dichotomy seems to come to you very naturally. How do you do it?

Re:  "Mission Accomplished?" WMD? Pay for itself? Greeted as liberators? Cheap oil? Last throes?  What won't you Bush supporters believe?

"Your lunatic ravings." -Bryan

Don't let a lunatic like me hit you with the reality that:

1.  9/11 happens and North Korea tests its first nuke under Bush's watch.

2.  Pakistan's AQ Khan gets pardoned after admitting to selling nukes to terrorist countries under Bush's watch.

3.  Bush's ally Saudi Arabia threatens to support violence in Iraq

4.  CIA closes team that focussed on Osama bin Laden under Bush's watch.

5.  Cheney's Halliburton continues to do business with Iran under Bush's watch.

6.  Senate majority leader Frist suggests alliance with Taliban under Bush's watch.

7.  Bush fails to heed advice given by the 9/11 commission

8.  History's mightiest military force gets bogged down in a WMD-less, third-world country for three years running with no end in sight under Bush's watch.  Even Iraqis say they were better off under Hussein.

With the rebuttals:

1.  It's Clinton's fault Bush did nothing to ward off terrorism in his first nine months except to take August off right before 9/11.

Straw man

2.  We invaded WMD-less Iraq so that nuke-peddler AQ Khan could be pardoned.

Straw man (2)

3.  We should heed Saudi Arabia more than the majority of Americans (all the left and some of the right).

Straw man (3), but it should be noted that good foreign policy should take Saudi Arabia's reaction to a troop pullout into account.

4.  "Makes sense to me." -Bryan

(and no argument from "Guest" as to why it doesn't make sense--a vacuous point against Bush)

5.  Under certain conditions, we should be doing business with state sponsors of terrorism.

No argument against from "Guest" and no apparent understanding of the economics of unilateral sanction or the utility of soft diplomacy.

6.  You lovingly explain Frist's position for negotiating with terrorists and then make sure to distance Bush away from it.

You create a straw man (4) of Frist's position, either failing to read the news account or failing to understand the account.

7.  Bush was against the 9/11 commission in the first place.

It seemed appropriate to point that out, since the case you presented asserted the opposite.

Did you want to set up a rule so that you could report untruths and I'm not allowed to correct them?

8.  You quote a document that says "The belief that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth the hardships entailed is down sharply, but very large majorities of Shia and Kurds continue to believe that it was worth it...  Seven in ten Iraqis want US-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year...  Support for attacks on US-forces has grown to a majority position - now six in ten."

And you, as predicted, change the subject entirely from your demonstrably false clalim that the majority of Iraqis preferred life under Saddam. And not the merest shred of remorse from you for peddling that lie.

Obviously, I have much to learn before I adopt your version of "sanity."

Your response here suggests that you are incapable of learning. Must be those Bush-hatin' lenses.

"I'd love to see you post other than anonymously and defend your misleading and (frankly) idiotic use of the data. I'm sure I'll be kept waiting." -Bryan

Well if "Curveball" was good enough for Bush, anonymous should be good enough too, "Bryan."  Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

"Typical Fever Swamp tactic is to keep changing the subject."  - Bryan

We are talking about Bush and the fact that you can't let a loon like me punch holes in your arguments, right?

Step up and show me with your detailed facts, figures and logic how full of crap I am.

As you say, I hope I won't be kept waiting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No less than four straw man fallacies, and no admission of error in your absolutely irresponsible claim about the supposed Iraqi preference of Saddam Hussein.

All that's left are about four cases where you express incredulity at my position, but without taking a coherent position of your own.

Just as well, since you'd probably humiliate yourself just as badly in those areas.

You appear to possess an appalling lack of knowledge concerning Iraq and the War on terror, and you combine it with an inability to reason minus the commission of obvious logical fallacies.

In short, you're smart to post anonymously.

[Guest Guest]

I know one thing Haliburton does and that is to milk the living shit out of Amercian taxpayers. I would like to hear your defense of Haliburton. I assume that you pay taxes so remember they are screwing you too!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a brain on drugs.

[Bryan]

I know one thing Haliburton does and that is to milk the living shit out of Amercian taxpayers. I would like to hear your defense of Haliburton.

Whenever the government gets involved in stuff you're going to get burned financially. $500 screwdrivers are the classic example.

Halliburton provides services that few companies are able to offer (sometimes Halliburton is the only American company providing certain services).

At times it appears that they have taken advantage of their government contracts (I don't know of any specific examples that held up in the end, however), but that happens with many companies, and it also happens with government where no private company is involved.

I'd like to hear what complaint you have against Halliburton.

If you can't think of a real complaint, then I don't see why I should bother providing any specific defense.

The biggest complaint against Halliburton seems to be that Cheney was once associated with them. Second place seems to be that they have government contracts associated with military operations, so Halliburton does stand to make profits during wartime.

I assume that you pay taxes so remember they are screwing you too!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You should weigh Halliburton against farm subsidies and Medicare.

Only Cheney wasn't a farmer and he's never been in charge of Medicare. That could be a problem for you.

[Bryan]

"And N. Korea might still be testing in secret without the invasion of Iraq.  You just wouldn't know about it."

And the North Koreans could also be dancing on the moon.  What is the connection between our invasion and North Korea?

Guest brought up North Korea as an indictment of Bush. Ask him about it.

"Al-Qaeda is no longer the hierarchical organisation that it was before 9/11. Three-quarters of its senior leaders have been killed or captured," the official said.

Condi Rice tried to pulled this crap a few years ago.  At a press conference she said that 3/4 of Al-Qaeda's senior leaders had been neutralized.  A reporter asked her for a number and she stumbled.  She couldn't explain what the total number of leaders was and what 3/4 of that would be.  Does Al-Qaeda call her every time one of their leaders goes missing? Come on.

So your position is that bin Laden remains in control of a well-organized and effective al Qaida leadership?

Why does he communicate so infrequently these days?

"Do we point out all the dumb ideas that Democrats have had under Bush's watch, too? I don't see the point of this one."

The "He did it, too" defence was given up by most people by the age of six.

You missed that "Guest" tried exactly that, eh? A strong sign of unreasoning bias on your part. "Guest" blamed Bush for a proposal by Frist. I just figured if Bush is responsible for Frist's proposals then it stands to reason that he must be responsible for the proposals of other senators, also.

In short, it was reductio ad absurdum, not tu quoque.

"Oh, now I see the point. You misreported the facts.

Frist suggested that the Taliban should be courted to participate in Afghanistan's government.

If they're willing to do that, it presents the possibility of ending violence in Afghanistan now and helping to moderate the radicals.

The same thing is being tried in Iraq with al-Sadr's militia--and I'm pretty sure that Democrats have been behind the idea."

Frist suggested that terrorists should be made part of the government.  Oh, wait a minute.  Aren't we fighting against "terror"?

Frist suggested it, but it's Bush's fault! lol

Yes, we're fighting against radical terrorism, and when terrorists are willing to participate in the process of representative government instead of blowing the government up, they have effectively renounced terrorism.

Then soft diplomacy has a chance to work. Might not have to kill as many terrorists that way.

It shouldn't be that tough to understand ... maybe try it without the Bush-hatin' sunglasses.

"Under Bush's watch, of course, so naturally it's his fault. *snicker*"

Maybe we should blame the Pope for this.  Bush's job was to defend us.  He didn't. Thousands died.

He's defending you now; chances are you want him to stop.

Explain that.

"And, using the logic you used here, you could have blamed whoever is in office when the next rogue nation goes nuclear."

If he/she is as incompetent as Bush, yes.

What makes you think that any other person would have done better than Bush did? Other than alcohol consumption and the like, that is? I'm serious. Let's see some reasoning instead of ad hoc reasoning based on blind hatred.

You keep hitting at the fact that "Guest" is hiding behind anonymity.  "Guest" gives me as much information about the person as the name Bryan does about you.  Anyone can make up a screen name-I did, but you still have no idea who I am.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If someone registers, their posts may be searched as a group for patterns. My posts, for example, are easily searched in that manner.

Anonymous guests could be one busy guy or an army posting individually.

I do not complain that I do not know the true identity. The complaint is that there is no virtual paper trail.

[Guest Keith-Marshall.Mo]

Whenever the government gets involved in stuff you're going to get burned financially.  $500 screwdrivers are the classic example.

Halliburton provides services that few companies are able to offer (sometimes Halliburton is the only American company providing certain services).

At times it appears that they have taken advantage of their government contracts (I don't know of any specific examples that held up in the end, however), but that happens with many companies, and it also happens with government where no private company is involved.

I'd like to hear what complaint you have against Halliburton.

If you can't think of a real complaint, then I don't see why I should bother providing any specific defense.

The biggest complaint against Halliburton seems to be that Cheney was once associated with them.  Second place seems to be that they have government contracts associated with military operations, so Halliburton does stand to make profits during wartime. 

You should weigh Halliburton against farm subsidies and Medicare.

Only Cheney wasn't a farmer and he's never been in charge of Medicare.  That could be a problem for you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok, so you have let me know that Haliburton is just one of the entities that is screwing us. That doesn't make it ok.

[Guest Guest]

This is a brain on drugs.  (correction:  it's no longer a brain, it's a bowl of Jell-O).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And YOU are an A** with nothing constructive to offer.

[Guest Stop the Stupidity]

I justified the connection between 9-11 and Iraq because Iraq was a state sponsor of terror.  That's the connection, and that's how it has always been presented by the administration.  The invasion was justified on numerous grounds (not just the terrorism connection), which were also emphasized from the first by the administration.

You've justified NOTHING!

There are five other countries listed by the US State Department as state sponsors of terror.

You've offered NOTHING to explain why Iraq receved all the attention while the others were passed over.

YOU are just like the cowboy, WAKE UP and realize that just because you say something doesn't make it true.

[Guest Guest]

You missed the point.

It would waste my time to try to explain it to you if blundered into this asinine interpretation of what I wrote.

The lack of critical thinking has left you with nothing but straw men to play with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In summary, YOU CANNOT explain the ASININE statement YOU made in a way that might appear as if it made sense so YOU hide your sorry ass behind "It would waste my time" much like reading anything posted under your name wastes mine.

Lack of critical thinking? I attribute it to YOUR lack of plain, logical thinking PERIOD! You write rings around a topic, close enough to claim relevance, but just don't seem to be able to make a point.

Crawl back inside your delusions.

[Guest Guest]

 

Condi Rice tried to pulled this crap a few years ago.  At a press conference she said that 3/4 of Al-Qaeda's senior leaders had been neutralized.  A reporter asked her for a number and she stumbled.  She couldn't explain what the total number of leaders was and what 3/4 of that would be.  Does Al-Qaeda call her every time one of their leaders goes missing? Come on.

Welcome to neo-Nazi-con Math 101. They're 3/4 neutralized and only 29/32 haven't been neutralized. That's the kind of grat results you get when you have a great ,isleaderer and deciderer.

[Guest Yoo're Sellin' BS-I Ain&]

You missed the point.

It would waste my time to try to explain it to you if blundered into this asinine interpretation of what I wrote.

The lack of critical thinking has left you with nothing but straw men to play with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, you've hit the BushWorld TriFecta.

You made a totally irrelevant, illogical statement.

You whine claiming people don't understand you.

You accuse others of your own shortcomings.

You must be applyimg for Scooter Libby's job.

[Guest Ain't Buyin' the BS from]

Whenever the government gets involved in stuff you're going to get burned financially.  $500 screwdrivers are the classic example.

Halliburton provides services that few companies are able to offer (sometimes Halliburton is the only American company providing certain services).

 

What a load of YOUR typically narrow minded crap. Halliburton prides services that few companis are able to offer. How would you know that when NO other companies are ALLOWED to offer when Halliburton is awarded NO-BID contracts.

[Guest Guest]

You should weigh Halliburton against farm subsidies and Medicare.

Only Cheney wasn't a farmer and he's never been in charge of Medicare.  That could be a problem for you.

Except the little cowboy wants lots more $ for Iraq, a good bit which will no doubt be taken by Halliburton while he calls for big cuts to Medicare.

If Cheney wasn'rt a farmer why is he constantly accompanied by the smell of manure?

[Guest Stop the Stupidity]

Whenever the government gets involved in stuff you're going to get burned financially.  $500 screwdrivers are the classic example.

Halliburton provides services that few companies are able to offer (sometimes Halliburton is the only American company providing certain services).

Are you making a point here? Are you suggesting that because something was wrong last week and we KNOW it was wrong that we should just accept it because that's the way it is and not try to correct it?

Or do you just write for the sake of writing and pay little attention to content?

[Guest Guest]

This is a brain on drugs.  (correction:  it's no longer a brain, it's a bowl of Jell-O).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ooooooooooh, an idiot speaks.

Y'all come back when ya have something sensible to say, 'til then crawl back in your cave.

[Guest Guest]

In short, you're smart to post anonymously.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As you are at least considerate enough to post with your name making it easy to avoid wasting time on your offpoint, self-righteous crap.

[Guest Stop the Stupidity]

What evidence of Maliki's US hatred to you have other than the bombing incident disavowed by the Dawa party?

If they hated the US that much, wouldn't they be proud of the bombing?

Face it:  if al-Maliki didn't have this faint guilt-by-association you'd be painting him as a pawn of the US government instead of its enemy.

Fallacy of the complex question.

Something was being done.  It didn't work as planned.  Al-Maliki is partly to blame for sheltering al-Sadr.

We're less willing to nuke cities these days.

I thought you preferred it that way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They disavowed it when? When it was convenient? Many WWII war criminals disavowed their actions as obeying orders, it didn't absolve them.

I think you inadvertently got two things right.

Maliki is a pawn of the US and like any whore will be as the $ flows.

And when the $ stops he will be our enemy.

It's time people realize that people whose support you buy are whores, not allies or friends.

[Guest Guest]

You missed the point.

It would waste my time to try to explain it to you if blundered into this asinine interpretation of what I wrote.

The lack of critical thinking has left you with nothing but straw men to play with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest The Decidering MISleaderer]

Will you damn Yankees quit yer bickerin' and actin' like yer in a democracy or somethin'.

We're gonna do what I decidered we're gonna do and I don't give a damned rat's ass what anybody else thinks.

If ya don't like it move somwhere else, if yer lucky I might invade and send lotsa $.

[Guest Guest]

Will you damn Yankees quit yer bickerin' and actin' like yer in a democracy or somethin'.

We're gonna do what I decidered we're gonna do and I don't give a damned rat's ass what anybody else thinks.

If ya don't like it move somwhere else, if yer lucky I might invade and send lotsa $.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a brain on drugs.

[Bryan]

As you are at least considerate enough to post with your name making it easy to avoid wasting time on your offpoint, self-righteous crap.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Looks like you need more practice.