Chirstianity

[Bryan]

I have absolutely no qualifications to be President and I'm still more qualified than GW to be president.

You prove yourself wrong with what follows.

As far as the intelligence goes I believe they cherry picked that which would better make thier case.

Who cherry-picked?

The NIE was not a partisan effort. It represented the majority views on the key issues, and included some of the minority views in its text.

On what basis would you prefer the minority views?

Or, in your speeches would you have covered all of the pros and cons (I can imagine that President Guest's speeches would be even longer than Clinton's)?

Say what you want this is a war of choice just as it appears it may be with Iran.

All wars are wars of choice. There's always the option of not confronting aggressive regimes, and there's always the option of surrender when attacked.

Furthermore I think GW has been the perfect patsy for the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Big Oil and of course that most prolific of war profiteers Haliburton.

Instead of answering these ridiculous arguments from you, I'm just going to ask you for at least one good piece of evidence in favor of each item on your laundry list of leftist lunacy.

When the shit hits the fan, GW will be the fall guy only he's too stupid to know it. Good grief, man! Open your eyes and ears.

They're open. Have you got an argument, or not?

What has come out of this war other than more death, global animosity towards the U.S. and Billions upon Billions of dollars that are un-accounted for?

1) Libyan disarmament (wmd)

2) democratic reforms in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, with an impetus for more to come.

3) Knowledge of black market movements of nuclear secrets (see Libya).

4) Exposure of the UN oil-for-food scandal (biggest $ scandal ever)

5) Freedom for the Iraqi people (though the Kurds are the only group putting it to excellent use thus far).

6) Strategic positioning relative to Iran.

7) Continued neutralization of al Qaeda in the world as it concentrates on Iraq.

8) Hussein deposed and punished

9) Nature of Iraq threat under Hussein brought more to light

10) Liberals forced to expose their true identity

The only way to make other nations like the United States is for the United States to be weaker relative to other countries.

I'm pretty sure you won't understand the why or how of it, but that's the way it is.

Meanwhile we stay the course while our soldiers still don't have the proper equipment to do the job and a privately funded hospital for wounded soldiers had to be built in Texas because the Feds continue to cut veteran benefits and and VA funding.

Incorrect (yet you said it as though it were fact).

http://www.factcheck.org/article144.html

Be specific about the Texas hospital to which you refer, please.

Yet, we thrown more into harms way.I guess it would be unrealistic to expect to see GW's daughters in uniform anytime soon. So, please tell me why it is that I'm supposed to support this President and his flawed policies?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because you don't know enough to have coherent policy ideas on your own, unfortunately.

[Guest Doubting Dubya]

No, because Clinton surely knew that he was deceiving people with his careful parsing of words.

He did that habitually, by the way.  I saw that type of thing from him before he was ever elected president, which is why I've never respected him apart from the office he held.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When Bush gave his speech after prancing around the carrier deck in sad imitation of a warrior he said the Battle of Iraq was the first victory(?) in the War on terror that started on 9/11. Surely HE knew he was deceiving people by trying to connect Iraq with 9/11. Of course you'll no doubt have some BS spn for that too.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

You prove yourself wrong with what follows.

Who cherry-picked? 

The NIE was not a partisan effort.  It represented the majority views on the key issues, and included some of the minority views in its text.

On what basis would you prefer the minority views?

Or, in your speeches would you have covered all of the pros and cons (I can imagine that President Guest's speeches would be even longer than Clinton's)?

All wars are wars of choice.  There's always the option of not confronting aggressive regimes, and there's always the option of surrender when attacked.

Instead of answering these ridiculous arguments from you, I'm just going to ask you for at least one good piece of evidence in favor of each item on your laundry list of leftist lunacy.

They're open.  Have you got an argument, or not?

1)  Libyan disarmament (wmd)

2)  democratic reforms in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, with an impetus for more to come.

3)  Knowledge of black market movements of nuclear secrets (see Libya).

4)  Exposure of the UN oil-for-food scandal (biggest $ scandal ever)

5)  Freedom for the Iraqi people (though the Kurds are the only group putting it to excellent use thus far).

6)  Strategic positioning relative to Iran.

7)  Continued neutralization of al Qaeda in the world as it concentrates on Iraq.

8)  Hussein deposed and punished

9)  Nature of Iraq threat under Hussein brought more to light

10)  Liberals forced to expose their true identity

The only way to make other nations like the United States is for the United States to be weaker relative to other countries.

I'm pretty sure you won't understand the why or how of it, but that's the way it is.

Incorrect (yet you said it as though it were fact).

http://www.factcheck.org/article144.html

Be specific about the Texas hospital to which you refer, please.

Because you don't know enough to have coherent policy ideas on your own, unfortunately.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It does seem to appear however that the Scooter Libby trial is bring to light some interesting facts about our VP . For instance the it was a very intentional punishment of Joe Wilson by the VP because his (Joe Wilsons)report didn't tell the VP what he wanted to hear about Iraq and WMD.

This says it all about this adminstration.

[God Save Us From Christians]

1) Libyan disarmament (wmd)

2) democratic reforms in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, with an impetus for more to come.

3) Knowledge of black market movements of nuclear secrets (see Libya).

4) Exposure of the UN oil-for-food scandal (biggest $ scandal ever)

5) Freedom for the Iraqi people (though the Kurds are the only group putting it to excellent use thus far).

6) Strategic positioning relative to Iran.

7) Continued neutralization of al Qaeda in the world as it concentrates on Iraq.

8) Hussein deposed and punished

9) Nature of Iraq threat under Hussein brought more to light

10) Liberals forced to expose their true identity

1) Was that really a response to our attacking Iraq? The Neocons would like to say so, but I'm not convinced that was the reason.

After all, South Africa also disarmed.

Lybia wanted back into the world community long before our attacking Iraq as evidenced by cooperation with the British in turning over the Pan Am bombers and compensating families.

2) You've got to be kidding! So Egypt had an election for which the outcome was all but assured - Mubarak is still the dictator of Egypt. And Saudi Arabia with democratic reforms? The most backward of all the Islamic Kingdoms?

3) Had we caught the Pakistani merchant before invading Iraq we might have known that he didn't sell them the nuclear technology. And why haven't we punished Pakistan because of this? And why haven't we punished the North Koreans? Ah, they don't have oil.

4) The Oil for Food scandal was caused by greed, this is true. But the oil for Iraqis scandal since our invasion is a lot worse. Where is the oil? Why hasn't it flowed to world markets to bring down the price? Why hasn't it funded their own reconstruction?

5) Freedom for Iraqis to face sectarian death squads. The Kurds were doing quite well under the US Protected No-Fly-Zone and are still doing well today, although the corruption up in Kurdistan is driving many people away. See the recent NPR story (although you probably think NPR is also a liberal media).

6) I'll agree with this one. In fact, with US troops in Afghanistan (eastern neighbor to Iran) and Iraq (western neighbor to Iran) we have the Iranians surrounded if we ever get enough troops to attack. After all, after Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, Iran holds the third largest proven oil reserves in the world. They have it, we need it.

7) Ah yes, neutralization of Al Queda. Like they were in Bali, Madrid, and London since our invasion. But remember, we have to win the war. Al Queda only has to not lose. Their soldiers WANT to die for Allah. Our young people don't WANT to die, but are willing to die for the cause.

8) Yes, Hussein is deposed and dead. Now let's get rid of Kim Jung Il. Oh wait - they don't have oil. Ah, but Hugo Chavez does, and Pat Robertson, that God-fearing Christian did suggest that we assassinate him. Can't you just feel the Christian love?

9) Yes, now we realize that Iraq really was no threat! Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz all LIED about the threat, and Colin Powell and most of America fell for the lie. Gee, it turns out there were no weapons of mass destruction after all. Gee, he didn't have chemical weapons to use against our troops after all.

10) Christian Conservatives continue to blather about the God of Love, while our Christian president slaughters tens of thousands of Iraqis in the name of Christ, the founder of America.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

You prove yourself wrong with what follows.

Who cherry-picked? 

The NIE was not a partisan effort.  It represented the majority views on the key issues, and included some of the minority views in its text.

On what basis would you prefer the minority views?

Or, in your speeches would you have covered all of the pros and cons (I can imagine that President Guest's speeches would be even longer than Clinton's)?

All wars are wars of choice.  There's always the option of not confronting aggressive regimes, and there's always the option of surrender when attacked.

Instead of answering these ridiculous arguments from you, I'm just going to ask you for at least one good piece of evidence in favor of each item on your laundry list of leftist lunacy.

They're open.  Have you got an argument, or not?

1)  Libyan disarmament (wmd)

2)  democratic reforms in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, with an impetus for more to come.

3)  Knowledge of black market movements of nuclear secrets (see Libya).

4)  Exposure of the UN oil-for-food scandal (biggest $ scandal ever)

5)  Freedom for the Iraqi people (though the Kurds are the only group putting it to excellent use thus far).

6)  Strategic positioning relative to Iran.

7)  Continued neutralization of al Qaeda in the world as it concentrates on Iraq.

8)  Hussein deposed and punished

9)  Nature of Iraq threat under Hussein brought more to light

10)  Liberals forced to expose their true identity

The only way to make other nations like the United States is for the United States to be weaker relative to other countries.

I'm pretty sure you won't understand the why or how of it, but that's the way it is.

Incorrect (yet you said it as though it were fact).

http://www.factcheck.org/article144.html

Be specific about the Texas hospital to which you refer, please.

Because you don't know enough to have coherent policy ideas on your own, unfortunately.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds like you feel fine with the whole thing and that's your right, my opinon however is that it all about money. This is a ruse and a few people because of it are making obscene profits. That's not ok with me.

[Bryan]

When Bush gave his speech after prancing around the carrier deck in sad imitation of a warrior he said the Battle of Iraq was the first victory(?) in the War on terror that started on 9/11.  Surely HE knew he was deceiving people by trying to connect Iraq with 9/11.  Of course you'll no doubt have some BS spn for that too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you for real?

Was Iraq or was Iraq not a state sponsor of terrorism under Hussein?

"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers."

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

"Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan continue to be the seven governments that the US Secretary of State has designated as state sponsors of international terrorism."

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2000/2441.htm

It seems like so many people allow Bush-hatred to crowd logical thought completely out of their minds.

[Guest Patriot]

When Bush gave his speech after prancing around the carrier deck in sad imitation of a warrior he said the Battle of Iraq was the first victory(?) in the War on terror that started on 9/11.  Surely HE knew he was deceiving people by trying to connect Iraq with 9/11.  Of course you'll no doubt have some BS spn for that too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank God we had George Bush as our president on 9/11. If Gore or Kerry had been president, we may all be dead by now.

[Guest Guest]

Thank God we had George Bush as our president on 9/11.  If Gore or Kerry had been president, we may all be dead by now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which has absolutely NO RELEVANCE to the fact that he desparately tries to tie 9/11 to Iraq when there is NO CONNECTION.

Just more of your usual blind stupidity.

[Guest Guest]

Are you for real?

Was Iraq or was Iraq not a state sponsor of terrorism under Hussein?

There was NO CONNECTION of Iraq to 9/11 or al Qaeda other than the cowboy's attempts to create one in the public's imagination.

And Iraq was on the cowboy's personal vendetta agenda long before 9/11.

Are YOU for real with your inability to see the deception of his speech or are you just too dizzy from the spin?

[Guest Scooter Fibby]

Sounds like you feel fine with the whole thing and that's your right, my opinon however is that it all about money. This is a ruse and a few people because of it are making obscene profits. That's not ok with me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You just don't own stock in the right companies, try Halliburton.

Kinda funny the little ol' cowboy shrub is trying to tell Wall St how CEOs should be compensated and has nothing to say about the all time record quarterly profit of Exxon/Mobil. Y'all don't think it might be due to cowboy ties to the oil bidness, do ya?

[Guest Guest]

It is the epitome of a dog and pony show to stake your argument on your personal reputation while posting as an anonymous guest.

Think about it, and you'll find that you have contradicted yourself in nearly record time.

You're just a regular font of irrelevant, meaningless commentary.

[Guest Guest]

Are you for real?

Was Iraq or was Iraq not a state sponsor of terrorism under Hussein?

The issue was that Bush attempted to tie 9/11 to Iraq, THERE IS NO CONNECTION.

Of course YOU would crucify Clinton for the typical deception of an adulterer while putting a man who deliberately deceives to start a war on a pedestal.

How do you feel about those who conveniently forget their treasonous act of selling weapoms to an enemy state? Would you make heroes of them?

[Guest Shocked and Awed]

Are you for real?

Was Iraq or was Iraq not a state sponsor of terrorism under Hussein?

Mailiki was a member of the party responsible for bombing a US Embassy annex in Beirut.

It was worth all the effort to lead him to power because?

[Guest Guest]

Are you for real?

Was Iraq or was Iraq not a state sponsor of terrorism under Hussein?

"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers."

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

"Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan continue to be the seven governments that the US Secretary of State has designated as state sponsors of international terrorism."

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2000/2441.htm

It seems like so many people allow Bush-hatred to crowd logical thought completely out of their minds.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd rather be afflicted with Bush hatred than whatever disease you have that blinds you to the obvious:

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

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

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/0...kistan.nuclear/

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134836,00.html

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

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

- Bush fails to heed advice given by the 9/11 commission he put together

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

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

- 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.

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

"Mission Accomplished?"

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

What won't you Bush supporters believe?

I double-freaking-dare you to defend Bush on these points. I love seeing how far Bush-boys will go.

[Guest BushBacker]

I'd rather be afflicted with Bush hatred than whatever disease you have that blinds you to the obvious:

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

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

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/0...kistan.nuclear/

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

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

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

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

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

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134836,00.html

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

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

-  Bush fails to heed advice given by the 9/11 commission he put together

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

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

- 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.

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

"Mission Accomplished?"

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

What won't you Bush supporters believe?

I double-freaking-dare you to defend Bush on these points.  I love seeing how far Bush-boys will go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Defend Bush to a history-challenged idiot ?? Ho-Hum, Boringggg.

[Bryan]

Time to work through another row of addlepated Guests ...

Which has absolutely NO RELEVANCE to the fact that he desparately tries to tie 9/11 to Iraq when there is NO CONNECTION.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

After 9-11, Bush created a coalition to fight terrorism, not a coalition to fight the just the terrorists who attacked on 9-11.

The tie-in is obvious that Iraq sponsored terrorism. You hate Bush, so you close your eyes to the obvious and try to shout down others by claiming that they are blind to the evidence.

I notice that you dodged the question here:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...=44154&st=180

If you answer correctly, the tie-in is obvious.

After that, you'll be tempted to argue a straw man (that Bush tried to make it seem as though Iraq was responsible for 9-11). That will further show how unhinged you are.

***

There was NO CONNECTION of Iraq to 9/11 or al Qaeda other than the cowboy's attempts to create one in the public's imagination.

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

Feel free to try to argue that Bush tried to make it seem like Iraq had something to do with plotting or carrying out the 9-11 attacks. You've hinted at it already, but it would be nice if you would slither all the way out of the hole before you get chopped in two.

And Iraq was on the cowboy's personal vendetta agenda long before 9/11.

Regime change in Iraq was U.S. policy starting with the Clinton administration.

See page 13 (17 on the Acrobat reader).

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL31339.pdf

Iraq was on the USA vendetta long before 9-11.

Are YOU for real with your inability to see the deception of his speech or are you just too dizzy from the spin?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let's assume that I'm dizzy from the spin. Point out the alleged deception for me and anyone else with a similar difficulty.

Assuming you're not just making it up in your own attempt at spin and deception ...

... speaking of which, why didn't you mention that regime change was the formal US policy in Iraq since Clinton's time? That seems a bit misleading of you.

Next. Huh. The next one came up with a name.

***

You just don't own stock in the right companies, try Halliburton.

Halliburton is a fairly average stock to own, as is true of many of the larger corporations.

http://tools.morningstar.com/charts/Mchart...ty=HAL&sLevel=A

http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Stock/Dia...cktab=interpret

I'm guessing that you're not a stock-market analyst.

Kinda funny the little ol' cowboy shrub is trying to tell Wall St how CEOs should be compensated and has nothing to say about the all time record quarterly profit of Exxon/Mobil.  Y'all don't think it might be due to cowboy ties to the oil bidness, do ya?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He would be more likely than you to understand how oil company profits blow around like the wind according to oil futures and consumer demand.

Short version: Since the oil being sold on the market today was produced at yesterday's prices, the price you pay needs to accommodate the cost of producing tomorrow's gallon of gas.

A quick illustration:

Citgo is a subsidiary of the Venezuelan (communist) government. Yet they sell their gas in the United States at pretty much the same market prices that the Exxon/Mobil station charges down the street.

So how does Exxon/Mobil profit so much more than Citgo?

You'll find the answer in cost of production and exploration costs.

But wouldn't it be easier to don your Bush-hating glasses and blame a corporate conspiracy instead of actually learning about economics?

(most in Congress should know enough about energy economics to understand all this, but they can't resist looking like a hero to their constituents who do not understand economics, so they hold hearings to make it look like they're doing something).

Next.

***

You're just a regular font of irrelevant, meaningless commentary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In contrast to you, I suppose.

Next.

***

The issue was that Bush attempted to tie 9/11 to Iraq, THERE IS NO CONNECTION.

The connection is obvious if you're brave enough to answer the question here:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...=44154&st=180

You're not brave enough. In fact, the opposite appears to be true.

Of course YOU would crucify Clinton for the typical deception of an adulterer while putting a man who deliberately deceives to start a war on a pedestal.

I didn't bring up Clinton.

In fact, according to my research, your mention of Clinton in the very first in this thread. Congratulations.

As for Bush, I haven't put him up on any pedestal. I simply defend him from deranged attacks.

How do you feel about those who conveniently forget their treasonous act of selling weapoms to an enemy state?  Would you make heroes of them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not for that, but you shouldn't misrepresent the facts.

http://teaching.arts.usyd.edu.au/history/h...Design/Iran.htm

Next.

***

Mailiki was a member of the party responsible for bombing a US Embassy annex in Beirut.

It was worth all the effort to lead him to power because?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That remains to be seen, but initially it was worth it because he was elected according to the principles of a constitutional republic.

The attempt at guilt-by-association seems rather weak, BTW.

Plus, if al-Maliki fails to pacify Baghdad within the next year or two he will almost assuredly be replaced making him even less of a factor in this discussion than he already was.

Congratulations to the one "Guest" who tried to at least provide the volume of response that is associated with a serious attempt at argument. Response to you forthcoming.

[Bryan]

I'd rather be afflicted with Bush hatred than whatever disease you have that blinds you to the obvious:

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

Most of the preparation for the 9/11 attacks happened under Clinton's watch, 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.

You don't just wake up one day and do a nuclear test, champ. It takes years of research and preparation. The Clinton administration got snookered.

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

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

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/0...kistan.nuclear/

Pardoned by whom? Bush? Make me laugh.

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?

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

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

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

Contingent on the "phased withdrawal" ideas now being successfully advanced by the left (and a few from the right).

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

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

- CIA closes team that focussed on Osama bin Laden under Bush's watch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Station

Makes sense to me.

"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.

"What you have had since 9/11 is growth in the Islamic jihadist movement around the world among groups and individuals who may be associated with al-Qaeda, and may have financial and operation links with al-Qaeda, but have no command and control relationship with it," he added.

http://english.aljazeera.net/News/archive/...ArchiveId=24226

What's your objection? You find it politically comforting to think of a "Bin Laden Team"?

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

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134836,00.html

Do you know what Halliburton does?

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

- 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.

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

-  Bush fails to heed advice given by the 9/11 commission he put together

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

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

He 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. 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.

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

Is that the URL you intended to provide? I don't see anything about Iraqis preferring Hussein, but 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.

Again, however, you have misrepresented the data.

I'll bet you meant to link to this (or something like it):

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

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.

"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."

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf...q_Sep06_rpt.pdf

See page 3, and note that this data is more recent than the relatively worthless poll you cited.

"Mission Accomplished?"

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

I've already dealt with this list, IIRC.

What won't you Bush supporters believe?

Your lunatic ravings.

I double-freaking-dare you to defend Bush on these points.  I love seeing how far Bush-boys will go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[Guest Guest]

Time to work through another row of addlepated Guests ...

Iraq was on the USA vendetta long before 9-11.

Let's assume that I'm dizzy from the spin.  Point out the alleged deception for me and anyone else with a similar difficulty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[Guest Guest]

Defend Bush to a history-challenged idiot ??  Ho-Hum, Boringggg.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

TO a history challenged idiot?

Bush IS a history challenged idiot!

[Guest Shocked & Awed]

something).

That remains to be seen, but initially it was worth it because he was elected according to the principles of a constitutional republic.

The attempt at guilt-by-association seems rather weak, BTW.

Plus, if al-Maliki fails to pacify Baghdad within the next year or two he will almost assuredly be replaced making him even less of a factor in this discussion than he already was.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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? Yet you justify the Iraq invasion because they were state sponsors of terror? Is your picture in the Hypocrites Hall of Fame? It should be. What good is a democratically elected hater of the US? We were safer with Saddam in power.

IF he fails in the next year or two? Why wasn't something being done the last two-three years? If one city takes longer to pacify than all of WWII something is seriously wrong.

[Guest Unbaffled by the BS]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

That Iraq was a state sponsor of terror and that an act of terror was commited ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY connected.

It's SO typical of of your kinda, maybe, it looks a little like, misleading reasoning.

Once again it's down to belief and I still believe you're full of crap,

[Guest Lost in BushWorld]

Not for that, but you shouldn't misrepresent the facts.

http://teaching.arts.usyd.edu.au/history/h...Design/Iran.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just WHERE is the ALLEGED misrepresentation?

Your own link says:"Thus, covertly, the Reagan Administration commenced selling weapons, in doing so breaking its own regulations and declared stance against Iran, a state that they had declared a terrorist nation, an enemy of the American State and all the while, they maintained their alliances with Iraq."

Selling weapons to an enemy state is the very definiton of treason and he most certainly conveniently couldn't remember,

Just more of your pompass rhetoric with no basis.

[Guest Guest]

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

"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.

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.

"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.

"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.

"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?

"[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.

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

We invaded Iraq for far less.

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

***

"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!"

"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.

"[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).

"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.

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

"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.

"[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?

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?

"Do you know what Halliburton does?" - Bryan

Make money off no-bid contracts?

"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...

***

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?

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

"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.

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

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

Thomas Kean: "I was talking about the government as a whole including the United States Congress. Because there are a number of things they can be doing that they're not doing as well. And you can go into any number of areas, from the fact that we're still five years after 9/11, we're still not distributing funds to the areas that need it the most."

***

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!

"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. 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

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

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

***

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?

***

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.

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

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

4. "Makes sense to me." -Bryan

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

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

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

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."

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

"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.

[Guest Stop the Stupidity]

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?

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

Most of the preparation for the 9/11 attacks happened under Clinton's watch, 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.

You don't just wake up one day and do a nuclear test, champ.  It takes years of research and preparation.  The Clinton administration got snookered.

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

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

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/0...kistan.nuclear/

Pardoned by whom?  Bush?  Make me laugh.

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?

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

Contingent on the "phased withdrawal" ideas now being successfully advanced by the left (and a few from the right).

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

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

Makes sense to me.

"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.

"What you have had since 9/11 is growth in the Islamic jihadist movement around the world among groups and individuals who may be associated with al-Qaeda, and may have financial and operation links with al-Qaeda, but have no command and control relationship with it," he added.

http://english.aljazeera.net/News/archive/...ArchiveId=24226

What's your objection?  You find it politically comforting to think of a "Bin Laden Team"?

Do you know what Halliburton does?

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

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.

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

He 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.  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.

Is that the URL you intended to provide?  I don't see anything about Iraqis preferring Hussein, but 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.

Again, however, you have misrepresented the data.

I'll bet you meant to link to this (or something like it):

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

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.

"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."

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf...q_Sep06_rpt.pdf

See page 3, and note that this data is more recent than the relatively worthless poll you cited.

I've already dealt with this list, IIRC.

Your lunatic ravings.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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!