Bush Doctrine

[Bala]

Amid all the political posturing about whether we should surge into or out of Iraq, a reality check is in order when considering the Bush administration's revised operation plan, and rules of engagement.

On 11 September 2001, before the dust had settled over lower Manhattan and the Pentagon, U.S. military and intelligence analysts determined, correctly, that the architect of the attacks that morning was sheik Osama bin Laden. He was the chief Imam of Jihadistan that borderless nation of Islamic extremists comprising al-Qa'ida and other Muslim terrorist groups around the world.

Though not a symmetric threat to the West (one with well-defined political, economic and geographic objectives), it became crystal clear that morning that Osama and his Jihadi adherents would use any means at their disposal to cripple the West.

Jihadi terrorists had attacked western civilian targets for more than two decades, with limited retaliation. However, all that changed when our nation watched as some 3,000 of our fellow Americans were slaughtered by just a handful of al-Qa'ida terrorists.

In a world where the proliferation of nuclear WMD is a growth industry, the Bush administration launched a bold military campaign to push back the front lines of this war to its strongholds in the Middle East, in order to thwart additional attacks on U.S. Urban centers. After containing Jihadi forces in Afghanistan, our best national estimates were that Iraq posed the greatest threat to regional stability and was the most likely conduit for Jihadi WMD.

On 19 March 2003, after long deliberations by the UN, the U.S. and our allies invaded Iraq. The Security Council's foot-dragging, however, along with substantial help from the French and Russians, had provided an ample window for Saddam to export some or all of his WMD to Syria and Iran.

We have several objectives---which were, and remain, within the margin of our critical national interests. The short-term tactical objectives were to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyrannical rule and remove Iraq as a conduit for WMD. The long-term strategic objectives were, and remain, to establish a democratic Muslim state to support regional stability and an ally who would permit forward deployment bases for limited personnel but significant military hardware.

The rub, and it's a big one, is that when the U.S. launched shock and awe, it was estimated by war planners that major hostilities would cease within 90-120 days. While "major," in this case, is certainly open to interpretation, no estimates projected that we would still be involved in combat operations almost four years after.

Of course, no war plan survives the opening salvo.

However, listening to the Democrats accuse the administration of lying about Iraq and then using that canard to effect a politically expedient sound of retreat one must conclude that these Demos think they are bulletproof in regard to their own opinions.

However, the facts are every prominent Democrat was once of the same opinion as the Bush administration. The only difference now is that those Democrats long ago lost their will to fight. They're now as eager as al-Qa'ida to see the U.S. retreat from Iraq.

What has ground Iraq into a virtual stalemate for three years is the influx of Jihadi insurgents and domestic tribal and sectarian fractionalization, which continue to destabilize efforts by the Iraqi government to establish social and economic order, particularly in Baghdad.

This insurgents is a good thing for America. While our troops engage the terrorists over there, over here we are safe. While other nations have been hit by extremists, we have avoided such attacks on US soil. Even though our civilian leadership has shown to be incompetent, the Bush Doctrine works......




______________________________________________
John Stuart Mill wrote, "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things."

[Bala]

Let's be clear: American forces are NOT, first and foremost, "fighting for Iraq's freedom." They are fighting for U.S. national-security interests and those of the free world.

How do you differentiate between "peaceful Muslims" and Islamists? Omar Ahmad, Chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, stated clearly, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran...should be the highest authority in America and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." Does that clear things up?




_________________________________________________
"It is a common observation here that our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own." ~ Benjamin Franklin

[Secretariat]

Bala,

There are so many errors in your post I'm not sure where to begin, but I'll try.

1. "In a world where the proliferation of nuclear WMD is a growth industry...." Please explain exactly how this is a "Grwoth industry" . THere were no promised stockpiles of WMD's found in Iraq, and with all the efforts of all these terrorist groups, and promises of dirty bombs, etc....There has NEVER been a terrorist nuclear event anywhere. With the porous borders all over the world and yet not one. I would think if Al Queda had such a weapon it would have been used long ago. So where is this "growth" industry? Iran? Yet to be proved? North Korea? Known for a long time. Pakistan? a supposed ally? India? GW signed an order to give them more nuclear information.

2. "After containing Jihadi forces in Afghanistan, our best national estimates were that Iraq posed the greatest threat to regional stability and was the most likely conduit for Jihadi WMD."

This is blatantly false. Paul Pillar at the CIA has documented that information was cooked to give the WH what it wanted. THe Defense Department did not trust the CIA information and so established their own intelligence on Iraq in the Pentagon with Chalabi's distorted information. The Niger incident was a forgery and known but promulgated on the public.

3. "On 19 March 2003, after long deliberations by the UN, the U.S. and our allies invaded Iraq. "

Many of the major coalition troops (the small number that were there) have withdrawn. Italy, Spain, and Britain is pulling out 3000 troops this May.

4. "The Security Council's foot-dragging, however, along with substantial help from the French and Russians, had provided an ample window for Saddam to export some or all of his WMD to Syria and Iran."

Absolutely not a shred of truth that "any" WMD's were smuggled to Syria. We've learned you don't invade countries on no real evidence.

5. "However, the facts are every prominent Democrat was once of the same opinion as the Bush administration."

Not true. Gore, Dean ,Boxer, Wesley Clark, Feingold all spoke out against going into Iraq, and those who did urged going back to the UN (which GW ignored) and getting a coalition including Arab nations. Additionally, the intelligence the WH is exposed to s quite different than that released to Congress, espeically since the WH had its own intelligence agency operating out of the Defense Department.

6. "This insurgents is a good thing for America. While our troops engage the terrorists over there, over here we are safe."

Insurgents are not good for America. it is a Sunni-Shia Civil War. The over there BS argument didn't work in Vietnam and it doesn't work here.

[46zilzal]

has whiskers on it.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lieofthecentury.html

[Bala]

46zilzal --

The lefts' infamous Downing Street Memo has been herald as proof of conspiracy ever since it first came out in the Times of London. Reporter Michael Smith who initially broke the story has never revealed his source. Amazingly, Smith claims the original memo was destroyed and he only has hand written copies. Here (http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/169)

The Democrats have gone so far as to throw out the possibility of impeachment based on the Downing St. memos.

My reaction to the Downing Street Memo is a hearty "yawn." Everyone knew that if Kerry lost the election the left would use the WMD issue in an attempt to impeach the president. The memo says that the Bush administration was talking about war with Iraq 7 months prior to it's start. So what. If you paid any attention to Bush's campaign to become president you would know that military action in Iraq was probable. The memo also claims that Bush was falsifying the intelligence to make the case. We have already had an investigation into this and the findings were that the intelligence was wrong (under Bush and Clinton), but that no pressure was exerted on the intelligence community by the administration to change the intelligence findings. This memo came out prior to the British election and Blair still won. That should tell you all you need to know about it's veracity. Somebody please wake me when the left has something good. This "story" is just more proof that the "loony left" runs the Democratic party.

Both Blair and Bush have called the allegations stemming from the memo as absurd. This has not stopped the media.

And here is another question for you: The Downing Street memo alleges that Bush had decided to go to war by May of 2002 and was going to "fix" the intelligence to support his case. We are supposed to believe that Bush knew no weapons were in Iraq, but decided to "fix" the intelligence so that he could tell everyone there were weapons. Why would he do that? He would have had to of known that once weapons were not found he would get hammered for it. President Bush is not a stupid politician. Moreover, Clinton spent eight years telling us Iraq had weapons. What did Bush do, go back in time and "fix" the intelligence while Clinton was in office in order to support a war in the future if and when he became president? The media in this country have not asked this question so either they want this story to hurt President Bush so they won't ask it, or they are just really, really bad journalist.





__________________________________________________ __
"There has already been published by the bucketfuls such brazen lies and utter fictions about me that I would long since have gone to my grave if I had let myself pay attention to that." ~ Albert Einstein

One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat has only nine lives." ~ Mark Twain

"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." ~ FDR

[PaceAdvantage]

Isn't it amazing how all these smoking guns amount to nothing but a hill of beans?

If the Democrats had ANY intention of impeaching this President, it would have been set in motion by now. Anything less, and they would have to answer some very tough questions as to why they waited even one second after taking power to start the process.

The longer you wait, the perception becomes that this is not a very important issue. And really, what could be more important than impeaching a sitting President? Not something you take lightly.

Bottom line is, there is nothing to impeach this President with! He's not guilty of doing anything illegal. There is no way to prove he was lying about anything.

It's all bullshit rhetoric, designed to fire up the populace when you don't have any message to sell, other than "I'm not Bush"

[Secretariat]

Isn't it amazing how all these smoking guns amount to nothing but a hill of beans?

If the Democrats had ANY intention of impeaching this President, it would have been set in motion by now. Anything less, and they would have to answer some very tough questions as to why they waited even one second after taking power to start the process.

The longer you wait, the perception becomes that this is not a very important issue. And really, what could be more important than impeaching a sitting President? Not something you take lightly.

Bottom line is, there is nothing to impeach this President with! He's not guilty of doing anything illegal. There is no way to prove he was lying about anything.

It's all bullshit rhetoric, designed to fire up the populace when you don't have any message to sell, other than "I'm not Bush"

Richard Clarke confirmed after 911 that both Bush and Rumsfeld wanted to find a way to get Saddam and Iraq involved in 911 so it was at least a year prior to the invasion where a verbal determination was witnessed. Anyone who reads the PNAC paper, or the maps of the energy meetings knows Iraq was a target for invasion. THe Downing Street papers simply confirm that. Impeachment could come eventually, but I doubt it for two reasons. One, not enough a Democratic edge, and there would be no attmept at it until after investigations are held with the incoming Congress. My guess is that by the time these investigations conclude we'll be approaching the end of the sad Bush saga and theyll let it go rather than precede during his lame duck Presidency.

Basically, the American people have already impeached him figuratively if you look at the latest Gallup poll. Congress may not have the 2/3rds but the people do.

[46zilzal]

If the rutabaga continues to think he is not accountable to checks and balances, he IS heading for a showdown that might include impeachment proceedings.

[Steve 'StatMan']

No original, just hand-written copies? Who's hand-writing, or alleged hand-writing? So far, this only reminds me of the alleged Bush Service Documents by that idiot in Texas that Dan Rather and CBS trumpeted that turned out to be computer-typed fakes. Would suspect even the O.J. Jury would reject evidence that could easily be fake (or at least 1 of the 12, anyway.)

[Bala]

I did not start this tread to defend the Iraq War, although I am certainly willing to do that. I know people of goodwill disagree about the necessity and conduct of the war and President Bush. Rather, I'd like to look at a fundamental misconception about that war -- particularly among elites and consider what it says about our conduct of the Global War on Terror and our prospects for winning.

Beginning just days after the attacks on September 11, one question has dominated the national debate: Is Iraq part of the War on Terror or a distraction from it? This was debated prior to the 2002 elections, when Congress voted by heavy margins to authorize war. It was a central issue in the 2004 presidential campaign. And, in a sense, it was one of the primary issues in the recent congressional elections.

War opponents have taken to making claims that are demonstrably false. Representative Jack Murtha, a longtime hawk and leading critic of the Iraq War, appeared on Meet the Press last spring. He told Tim Russert: “There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went there. None. There was no connection with al Qaeda. There was no connection with terrorism in Iraq itself.” Before that, a Kerry campaign spokesman told us, “Iraq and terrorism had nothing to do with one another. Zero.” Network television anchors tell us the same thing. A high-profile Washington Post columnist described Iraq's connections to terrorism as “fictive.” And on it goes.......

The Bush Administration has neglected to respond to those challenges. What is the truth about Iraq and terrorism?

In the months and years before the Iraq invasion, the U.S. intelligence community {with a few notable exceptions} believed that secularist Iraqis would never work with radicals like Osama bin Laden and that fundamentalists would never cooperate with an infidel like Saddam Hussein.

On what did they base these opinions? Not much.

Before 9/11, the U.S. intelligence community never penetrated the senior leadership of either Iraq or al Qaeda -- two of America's most dangerous and determined enemies. Think about that. Bob Woodward interviewed the head of the Iraq operations group at the CIA, who told him that CIA reporting sources inside Iraq before the war were thin. How thin? “I can count them on one hand,” he said, “and still pick my nose.” {funny guy Woodward}

In July 2004, a report from the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded: “The Central Intelligence Agency did not have a focused human intelligence collection strategy targeting Iraq's links to terrorism until 2002. The CIA had no [redacted] sources on the ground in Iraq reporting specifically on terrorism.” And that same report quoted an unnamed Intelligence Community official who made this breathtaking admission: “I don't think we were really focused on the counterterrorism side, because we weren't concerned about the Iraqi Intelligence Service going out and proactively conducting terrorist attacks. It wasn't until we realized that there was the possibility of going to war that we had to get a handle on that.”

Again, think about that. Saddam Hussein claimed that the Mother of All Battles, as he called the Gulf War, never ended. His government harbored several of the world's most notorious terrorists -- Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal among them. Within days of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, his government facilitated the escape from U.S. authorities of the Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for that bombing. Less than two months later, his intelligence service botched an attempt to assassinate George H.W. Bush on a visit to Kuwait. By the late 1990s, he was supplying chemical weapons expertise to terrorist-friendly Islamic fundamentalists in Sudan. He wired $150,000 to his intelligence chief in Prague to blow up the U.S. government's headquarters of Radio Free Europe. An Iraqi government-run newspaper called Osama bin Laden an “Arab and Islamic hero” and there were several credible reports—including some from open sources—that Saddam Hussein offered bin Laden safe haven in 1998.

All of this, and yet the U.S. intelligence community wasn't “really focused on the counterterrorism side” of the threat from Iraq. I'd submit to you that that was grossly neglegent.





____________________________________
In such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, not to be on the side of the executioners. ~ Albert Camus

We make war that we may live in peace. ~ Aristotle

There never was a good war or a bad peace. ~ Benjamin Franklin

[PaceAdvantage]

If the rutabaga continues to think he is not accountable to checks and balances, he IS heading for a showdown that might include impeachment proceedings.

Stop already, will ya? Checks and balances...WHY HAVEN'T THEY KICKED IN YET, IF INDEED, THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO KICK-IN IN THIS CASE?

Heading for what showdown? There's no proof of any lie. Relying on flawed intel is not lying, especially if you have no proof otherwise.

So what if they had their eye on Iraq before 9/11? That proves nothing. Certainly doesn't prove a lie took place.

[Steve 'StatMan']

The Impeach Bush fools have only 23 months to get it done, before he leaves office on his own. If your guys were serious and had the goods, they should have started long ago.

Total Non-Starter.

You're best bet is to put a bunch of lipstick on Hillary and build up Obama to make enough people believe he's actually accomplished anything to merit being the next president, given the current climate. As far as I know Jimmy Carter was a nice guy who accomplished more, before he was elected. He and the dems had me fooled when I was 16 and couldn't vote, but you can't fool me now. But, you only have to fool enough of the people, in just enough of the states.

[Bala]

We now know much more about Iraq and terrorism. In the past foru years since the war began, the U.S. government has collected more than two million “exploitable items” from Iraq. That's a term of art to describe documents including payroll logs, audio and videotapes, strategy memos between senior Iraqi regime officials, letters between government agencies and computer hard drives of top Iraqi ministers. In these documents we have an extraordinary history of prewar Iraq. In these documents we can get answers to the many outstanding questions of what Saddam Hussein was doing in the years leading up to the most recent Iraq War and, in some cases, what he was doing once the war began. It is such a potential treasure trove that you would think the U.S. government would have doubled or tripled its teams of analysts and translators in order to mine this information for clues about Saddam's weapons, his secret allies, and his relations with a wide variety of terrorists.

But the U.S. intelligence community, now led by John Negroponte, has steadfastly resisted serious attempts to exploit and release the information captured in postwar Iraq. As of March, three years after the war began, the U.S. intelligence community had fully translated and analyzed less than five percent of the documents captured in postwar Iraq. In some cases, they actually fought efforts to increase their budgets—something that is unheard of in the intelligence bureaucracies. At one point, a little more than a year into the document exploitation project, senior intelligence officials tried to have the project shut down altogether.

Why is this? Why would our intelligence community choose ignorance? I honestly do not know. Perhaps it is typically govt. bureaucracy or apathy. Or perhaps Michael Savage (http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/) is right. “Liberalism is a mental disorder.” {don't you dare label Bush a conservative!}

Consider just a couple examples of what we have learned from a review of just the small percentage of documents that have been translated.


In 1995, a senior Iraqi intelligence official met with Osama bin Laden. After the meeting, Saddam Hussein agreed to broadcast al Qaeda propaganda on Iraqi government-run television and to let the relationship develop through discussion and agreement.


In 1998, a confidante of bin Laden visited Baghdad as a guest of the Iraqi regime, staying in the Iraqi capital for two weeks at government expense. The document corroborated telephone intercepts the U.S. government had not previously been able to understand.



___________________________________________
When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it? ~ Eleanor Roosevelt

There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the enemy. ~ George Washington

It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war. ~ John F. Kennedy

[Bala]

Richard Clarke confirmed after......"........written a book called Against All Enemies which will appear tomorrow--coincidentally, just in time for the 2004 election campaign. Clarke is being interviewed on 60 Minutes as I write this--a cozy corporate tie-in, as Viacom owns both CBS and the publisher of Clarke's book........."

".....Clarke must know that Iraq was involved in the Islamofascists' 1993 attempt to destroy the World Trade Center......" Source (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/006214.php)

________________________________________

"In 1998, according to the New Republic, Clarke "played a key role in the Clinton administration's misguided retaliation for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which targeted bin Laden's terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan......." Source (http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/143)

_______________________________________


"While Clarke claims that he is "an independent" not driven by partisan motives.........discerns their true ideological beliefs not in their words but in their body language: "As I briefed Rice on al-Qaeda, her facial expression gave me the impression she had never........." Source (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,604598,00.html)

______________________________________



Sec, your boy is a fruit cake!











____________________________________________
“There's a very fine line between a groove and a rut; a fine line between eccentrics and people who are just plain nuts.” ~ Christine Lavin

“The bottom line is, there have been a lot of nuts elected to the United States Senate.” ~ Charles Grassley

“John Kerry said today that he wants to get rid of tax cuts for the rich and his wife said, 'Hey, shut up! What's the matter with you?! Are you nuts?!'” ~ Jay Leno

[JustRalph]

good stuff............. interesting reading. Thanks for the posts. It is a deep well and if we ever get to the bottom of it, who knows what we might find?

[Secretariat]

Sec, your boy is a fruit cake!


Yet, GW hired him.

The man knows more about terrorism in his little finger than this admisntration has ever learned. He begged Rice to call a meeting shortly after the election to address Al Queda and was disregarded.

I know that the right has difficulty with people who write books becasue they have difficulty reading them, but I suggest you read Clarke's book thoroughly.

Silly name calling like fruit cake is beneath. Clarke was one of the msot respected men in anti-terorrism and still is. If you don't like him, check on Paul Pillar or dozens of other members of the CIA.

Your initial post is still riddled with wild inaccuracies that I addressed. Wake up and stop spouting PNAC Straussian ideology. It's been a disaster.

[Tom]

Silly name calling like fruit cake is beneath. Clarke was one of the msot respected men in anti-terorrism and still is.


Gee, if he was so good, how come nobody ever listened to him? We were hit by terror attack after terror attack for years. Guess it would have been a lot worse if he wasn't so good. :lol:

[Secretariat]

Gee, if he was so good, how come nobody ever listened to him?


Because this administration was too busy vacationing and were too stupid to deal with terrorism pre-911, as Clarke begged them to deal with anti-terrorism.

We were hit by terror attack after terror attack for years. Guess it would have been a lot worse if he wasn't so good. :lol:

Tom, the Cole had been hit near the end of Clinton's presidency. The CIA confirmed it was Al Queda as GW took office, and he did nothing. GW ignored the PDB "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US" so he could get to a barbecue. Those who failed to listen to the man bear the brunt of responsiblity. Suggest you read his book.

[Tom]

Only 9-11 occurred on Bush's watch,. ALL the otehr attacks occurred under other administrations, who apparently found Clarke a nitwit as well.

And near the end doens't cut it - Clinton should have acted immediatelty. He failed to do his job. In fact, the only jobs he ever finished were......never mind!:eek:

[JustRalph]

clarke is the poster boy for being knowledgeable, but so damn off putting that nobody gives a shit what he knows. He has the personality of a Texas Rattler. That is why nobody would listen to him. There are people skills that are neccessary in government and other areas of life. He didn't have them.

[Bala]

Memory does fade over time. So lets review;
{In no particular order}

Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City.

Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed.

Muslims cut off the heads of three teenage girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school.

Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq.

Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt.

A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six.

Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back.

Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics.

Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel.

Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and buses. Over 700 are injured.

Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder.

Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali.

Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammad. Muslims are outraged.

Muslim newspapers publish offensive and vicious anti-Semitic cartoons on a daily basis that demean and dehumanize Jews and that call for their extermination. Their cartoons, among other things, characterize Jews as snakes and rats wearing the Star of David and the traditional skullcap and prayer shawl. This imagery is indistinguishable from the hate cartoons of the Nazis.

Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 100+ shooting skirmishes around the world.

Muslims kill Israeli pregnant mother and then shoot her four daughters at near point-blank range.

Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge.

Dead children. Dead tourists. Dead teachers. Dead doctors and nurses. Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of Muslims .. no Muslim outrage ... but publish a cartoon depicting Mohammad with a bomb in his turban and all hell breaks loose.

Why have we been spared since Septermer 11 --- the Bush doctrine words!
If others have a different theory, I would like to hear it.







__________________________________________
“Kill a man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill everyone, and you are a god.” ~ Jean Rostand

“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets” ~ Voltaire

“A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him.” ~ Winston Churchil

[Bala]

......Paul Pillar at the CIA has documented that information was cooked....... Why assume Bush is liying. Could the CIA be lying? Could the CIA have an agenda?

“A senior, unelected CIA official--Paul Pillar--was given agency approval to anonymously attack Bush administration policies less than two months before the November 2, 2004, presidential election. That Pillar was among the most strident of these frequent critics--usually in off-the-record speeches to gatherings of foreign policy experts and business leaders--was well known to his colleagues in the intelligence community and to Bush administration policymakers. His was not an isolated case; CIA officials routinely trashed Bush administration policy decisions, often with official approval, in the months leading up to the Iraq.......” Source (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/713hkkee.asp?pg=1)

The CIA gave a operative the go ahead to criticize a sitting president? This is mutiny! ~ Bala

__________________________________________________ ___


“....... about the guerrilla war that the CIA, long a Democratic stronghold, has conducted for years against the Bush......”


"......after George W. Bush dismissed a pessimistic CIA report on Iraq as ''just guessing,'' the analyst who identified himself as its author told a private dinner last week of secret, unheeded warnings years ago about going to war in Iraq. This exchange leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the president of the United States and the Central Intelligence Agency are at war with each other.......” Source (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/007980.php)



"........Intelligence agents are becoming known less for their ability to serve a sitting administration (and far less for their knowledge of other parts of the world) than for their reactionary impulse to protect their own fiefdoms......" CIA's Rogue (http://www.democracy-project.com/archives/000565.html)

__________________________________________________ ___


Bala ~ Western democracies, particularly those beacons of liberty (the U.S. and our Allies), are at war with Jihadistan, a borderless nation of Islamic fascists comprising al-Qa'ida and other Islamist terrorist groups and their malcontent sects. A borderless nation? The "Islamic World" of the Quran recognizes no political borders. Though orthodox Muslims (those who subscribe to the teachings of the "pre-Medina (http://www.historyofjihad.com/)" Quran) do not support acts of terrorism or mass murder, very large sects within the Islamic world subscribe to the "post-Mecca (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarkMAlexander/2005/09/09/a_referendum_on_post_911_planning)" Quran and Hadiths (Mohammed's teachings). It is this latter group of death-worshipping sects that calls for jihad, or "holy war," against all "the enemies of God." They constitute an enemy without borders -- a nation of "holy" warriors called Jihadistan.


While the Bush administration is careful not to paint Islam with a broad brush, the correct way to understand this enemy, in order to engage and destroy it, is to cast off the historic warfare model. This enemy is simply not a political entity. As President George Bush correctly noted in October of 2001, "Our war on terror begins with al-Qa'ida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. ... "This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion."


Again, why haven't we been hit since 9/11? Could it be the Bush Doctrine works?














_________________________________________
"It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value.” ~ Arthur C. Clarke

“Look for intelligence and judgment and, most critically, a capacity to anticipate, to see around corners. Also look for loyalty, integrity, a high energy drive, a balanced ego and the drive to get things done.” ~ Colin Powell

A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God. ~ Bala

[Secretariat]

There are people skills that are neccessary in government and other areas of life.

You mean like Bush and Cheney. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Secretariat]

Memory does fade over time. So lets review;
{In no particular order}

Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City.

Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed.

Muslims cut off the heads of three teenage girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school.

Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq.

Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt.

A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six.

Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back.

Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics.

Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel.

Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and buses. Over 700 are injured.

Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder.

Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali.

Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammad. Muslims are outraged.

Muslim newspapers publish offensive and vicious anti-Semitic cartoons on a daily basis that demean and dehumanize Jews and that call for their extermination. Their cartoons, among other things, characterize Jews as snakes and rats wearing the Star of David and the traditional skullcap and prayer shawl. This imagery is indistinguishable from the hate cartoons of the Nazis.

Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 100+ shooting skirmishes around the world.

Muslims kill Israeli pregnant mother and then shoot her four daughters at near point-blank range.

Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge.

Dead children. Dead tourists. Dead teachers. Dead doctors and nurses. Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of Muslims .. no Muslim outrage ... but publish a cartoon depicting Mohammad with a bomb in his turban and all hell breaks loose.

Why have we been spared since Septermer 11 --- the Bush doctrine words!
If others have a different theory, I would like to hear it.







__________________________________________
“Kill a man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill everyone, and you are a god.” ~ Jean Rostand

“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets” ~ Voltaire

“A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him.” ~ Winston Churchil

Yey with 6 million Muslims currently in the US, there has not been one IED or suicide attack. And remember it was a Muslim who turned in the British bombers who were going to get on that flight. Your attempt to impugn Muslims "in general" and then somehow associated it with the bush Doctrine is bizarre, especially in lieu of the fact that GW has gone out of his way to praise the Islam religion. There were primarily Saudis on those planes - Arabs - (no Iraqis) - and ordered by an extremist of the sect Wahhabism - Bin Laden. Impugning an entire relgiion due to extremists is unworthy - just because McVeigh was a Christian and attended Christina identnity movements doesn't mean all Christians are terrorist.s. So stop fomenting hatred of six million people in this country who've done ntohing to harm the US.

Is this your strategy, to take a small sect of terrorists who invaded our country, and then expand it into a fuill fledged crusade agasint all Muslims?

Oh, and yeah right....the CIA lied to GW...That's why Tenet supported supported GW, and why the Pentagon set up their own intellgience gatheing service with Chalbi's men, and not just Pillar but so many of the people of the CIA have come forward. You really are a Lieberman..

[JustRalph]

You mean like Bush and Cheney. :lol: :lol: :lol:

they sure went farther than Clarke...........ha ha ha ..........

[Bala]

Is this your strategy, to take a small sect of terrorists who invaded our country, and then expand it into a fuill fledged crusade agasint all Muslims? You're reading to much into my posts. I am not impugning all of Islam. Neither is Bush. In a religion with over 1 billion practitioners, if just 10% are active in hardcore Islam, then we are talking about 100,000,000 people.

I agree with your Saudi Arabian analysis. As I said in a prior post, I'm not defending the Iraq war, rather, the many misconceptions spewed by the big corporate (pro democratic) media.

Al Qaeda may not have well defined borders. However, they are aided and abeted by friendly nations. Terrorists organization (Islamists or narco terrorists of South America) are in need of large resources. There is a need for physical land to train and an obvious need for weaponry. Technological instructions on bomb making. A medical facilities for training accidents. And of course American cash to fund their worldwide operations.

A full para military operation needs support from a complicities nation.

Sec, I'm sure you are aware of the old axiom – “generals are fighting the last war.”

I wonder if your not fighting Vietnam all over again. General Westmorland was a piece of putrid dog vomit. LBJ was just as corrupt. Bush is not these men. Bush does have integrity.






____________________________________
“Integrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching.”

“Integrity has no need of rules.” ~ Albert Camus

“My father was very strong. I don't agree with a lot of the ways he brought me up. I don't agree with a lot of his values, but he did have a lot of integrity, and if he told us not to do something, he didn't do it either.” ~ Madonna

[Secretariat]

[font=Verdana, sans-serif][size=2]I wonder if your not fighting Vietnam all over again. General Westmorland was a piece of putrid dog vomit. LBJ was just as corrupt. Bush is not these men. Bush does have integrity.


Sometimes I think maybe I am, however, I disagree about Bush and integrity. I think he's pretty much a corporate shill in over his head.

[46zilzal]

24 killed in one day based upon the rutabaga doctrine.

[Tom]

Point out in the doctrine about helicopters crashing.
Or are you just virtually vomitting here again? e-puke?

[46zilzal]

Point out in the doctrine about helicopters crashing.
Or are you just virtually vomitting here again? e-puke?
IF they were not there, they'd be alive:SIMPLE

[46zilzal]

from CNN:"A senior military officer said initial indications suggest the helicopter was downed by hostile fire."

[46zilzal]

How The American People Will Pay For Bush's Ego-Driven Fantasy (excerpt from BUSHWATCH)
...The nation pays the price. The heaviest burden — in death, shattered bodies, broken families and ruined careers — falls on those who serve. To find the personnel for the Bush escalation, the Pentagon must lengthen deployments in Iraq and shorten training time at home. And the back-door draft has become a life sentence: there is no limit on the cumulative amount of time citizen-soldiers can be required to serve on active duty. Mama, don’t let your children grow up to be reservists. The rest of us will pay a financial price for the hundreds of billions squandered in Iraq and, more important, a price in reduced security....

[PlanB]

Am I the only one who finds the very word "Doctrine" applied to anything Bush does as Laughable? I mean, the words theory & doctrine apply to thought-out coherent ways of viewing a circumstance; does Bush score any points when that standard is applied? 43 is by himself; 43 is the WORST President ever. There are no competitors.

[Tom]

Am I the only one who finds the very word "Doctrine" applied to anything Bush does as Laughable? I mean, the words theory & doctrine apply to thought-out coherent ways of viewing a circumstance; does Bush score any points when that standard is applied? 43 is by himself; 43 is the WORST President ever. There are no competitors.


Carter.
Nixon
Kennedy

The 3 stooges of presidents.

woo woo woo woo

[46zilzal]

A poll, taken May 23-30, 2006, asked 1,534 registered American voters to pick the worst U.S. President of the last 61 years.

"Which of these eleven presidents we have had since World War II would you consider the worst president - Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Senior, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush?"

1. George W. Bush (34%)
2. Richard Nixon (17%)
3. Bill Clinton (16%)
4. Jimmy Carter (13%)
5. Don't Know/No Answer (5%)
6. Lyndon Johnson (4%)
7. Ronald Reagan (3%)
8. George H. W. Bush (3%)
9. Gerald Ford (2%)
10. Harry Truman (1%)
11. John Kennedy (1%)

a 2:1 lead over his nearest rival

[Show Me the Wire]

Don't worry Carter will have a double digit lead as his seemingly anti-semetic feelings are becoming well known.

[GameTheory]

A poll, taken May 23-30, 2006, asked 1,534 registered American voters to pick the worst U.S. President of the last 61 years.

"Which of these eleven presidents we have had since World War II would you consider the worst president - Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Senior, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush?"

1. George W. Bush (34%)
2. Richard Nixon (17%)
3. Bill Clinton (16%)
4. Jimmy Carter (13%)
5. Don't Know/No Answer (5%)
6. Lyndon Johnson (4%)
7. Ronald Reagan (3%)
8. George H. W. Bush (3%)
9. Gerald Ford (2%)
10. Harry Truman (1%)
11. John Kennedy (1%)

a 2:1 lead over his nearest rivalMost of those guys would have been in the lead when they were sitting presidents. Esp. Reagan -- now he's only 3%.

[46zilzal]

Most of those guys would have been in the lead when they were sitting presidents. Esp. Reagan -- now he's only 3%.
that's true...historical perspective takes time, but the foul stench of a Nixon lasts a long time....as it will here.

[skate]

anyone who believes, Iraq is not a geographical necessity in the war against terror, is not worthy of being a Turd.


Clarke-Bar is at best 'a turd'.

[doophus]

Don't we remember that Clarke was a lowly 2-star who was already making retirement plans when VOILA! Clinton determined that he was from Arkansas and immediately resurrected him, gave him a 2-star promotion and named him the CO of NATO?

My memory cells are older and I don't have the inclination to research it, but my Arkansas political contact just tonight confirmed it to my satisfaction.

[skate]

do, do it;

yes, it is always good to review the three 'C"s.

clinton
clarke
cancer

well, at least we 've had some progress in cancer.

[PaceAdvantage]

Most of those guys would have been in the lead when they were sitting presidents. Esp. Reagan -- now he's only 3%.

Isn't it weird how everyone forgets how hated Reagan was by many of the same types of folks who truly hate GWB today....

[PaceAdvantage]

A poll, taken May 23-30, 2006, asked 1,534 registered American voters to pick the worst U.S. President of the last 61 years.

Yawn.

[dylbert]

Where does Bill "I think with my Johnson" Clinton rank? His lack of attention to national security allowed framework for today's terrorism situation to be fully erected. (Pun intended.) If only he had worried about safety of American citizens as much as he did renting Lincoln bedroom and getting his "Johnson" serviced. Another part of his "hands-on" legacy...

As "wife" of presidential candidate, more of his missteps will get noticed. And, her shortcomings -- such as failed national healthcare agenda -- will get more analysis.

[JustRalph]

amazing how people forget about 18% car loans and home loans at 19.5%

unemployment in the 7 percent area..............can you say hello to jc

jimmy carter...............still the worse

[46zilzal]

"The best way to defeat the totalitarian of hate is with an ideology of hope -- an ideology of hate -- excuse me -- with an ideology of hope." (Jan. 11, 2007)

what would one expect from someone only capable of thought at the branistem level?

[PlanB]

what would one expect from someone only capable of thought at the branistem level?
LOL, that's just so well said; I'm gonna steal that brainstem reference.

[Secretariat]

amazing how people forget about 18% car loans and home loans at 19.5%

unemployment in the 7 percent area..............can you say hello to jc

jimmy carter...............still the worse

I remember that. But right now I'm thinking of 22,000+ American soldiers wounded and 3,000+ dead for a WMD lie, and no end in sight..

[Show Me the Wire]

I remember that. But right now I'm thinking of 22,000+ American soldiers wounded and 3,000+ dead for a WMD lie, and no end in sight..


And I remember Carter funding the Taliban. Hmmm. Without the Taliban there would have been no 9/11.

[PlanB]

And I remember Carter funding the Taliban. Hmmm. Without the Taliban there would have been no 9/11.

WITHOUT THIS -------------- THERE WOULD BE NO THAT ------------------.

Come on Fill in the dashes. Do you even realize what a leap you took?

[PaceAdvantage]

I remember that. But right now I'm thinking of 22,000+ American soldiers wounded and 3,000+ dead for a WMD lie, and no end in sight..

Do you think more people died due to emotional and financial stress brought on during the piss-poor economic conditions of the Carter years (suicide, spousal and child abuse, alcohol and drug abuse, etc. etc.) vs. the number of troops KIA or injured in Iraq?

I'm willing to bet Carter killed more Americans with the economic malaise that prevailed during his administration.....

[PaceAdvantage]

what would one expect from someone only capable of thought at the branistem level?

This coming from a guy who can't even spell/type BRAINSTEM correctly. At least you have your groupie....

[46zilzal]

This coming from a guy who can't even spell/type BRAINSTEM correctly. At least you have your groupie....
you NEVER have typo's my goodness. Didn't know perfection existed.

[46zilzal]

Do you think more people died due to emotional and financial stress brought on during the piss-poor economic conditions of the Carter years (suicide, spousal and child abuse, alcohol and drug abuse, etc. etc.) vs. the number of troops KIA or injured in Iraq?

I'm willing to bet Carter killed more Americans with the economic malaise that prevailed during his administration.....
hogwash

[PaceAdvantage]

you NEVER have typo's my goodness. Didn't know perfection existed.

Just pointing out the irony of it all....

[Show Me the Wire]

WITHOUT THIS -------------- THERE WOULD BE NO THAT ------------------.

Come on Fill in the dashes. Do you even realize what a leap you took?


No leap. Only failed foreign policy, a long with his failed domestic policy. Carter's administration had no clue what is was doing domestically of foreign. No leap just facts and in the physical univesre every action has a reaction. Plain and simple cause and effect, I grant unattended effect, but none the less the result of the most inept administration to occupy the presidency.

[46zilzal]

WITHOUT THIS -------------- THERE WOULD BE NO THAT ------------------.

Come on Fill in the dashes. Do you even realize what a leap you took?
he helped the mujahadeem not the taliban in another of those silly surrogate wars

[46zilzal]

No leap. Only failed foreign policy, a long with his failed domestic policy. Carter's administration had no clue what is was doing domestically of foreign. No leap just facts and in the physical univesre every action has a reaction. Plain and simple cause and effect, I grant unattended effect, but none the less the result of the most inept administration to occupy the presidency.
Buchanan and Warren G. Harding beat him by miles and miles.

[PaceAdvantage]

hogwash

Really? LOTS of people were HURTING during the Carter years. You don't think all that financial burden, stress and MALAISE brought an end to a lot more than 3000 lives either through suicide, violence, substance abuse, etc???

Please....you're supposed to be smart, are you not? After all, you take it upon yourself almost every day to criticize the President's intelligence level, so I must assume you consider yourself, at the very least, smarter than GWB.

I'd be fairly confident in stating the Carter administration killed a lot more Americans than GWB ever will....

After all, this is the age of nearly FULL employment, SUVs, WIDE SCREEN TVs with nothing but AMERICAN IDOL and FOX NEWS.....lol

Who could ask for anything more? People are living it up nowadays...ya'll whining about how bad things are in this country? Where? New Orleans maybe....everywhere else, people are doing nothing but gassing up their SUVs and buying the HDTVs.....

Viva la Bush!

[Show Me the Wire]

Buchanan and Warren G. Harding beat him by miles and miles.

Don't have personal knowledge about their administrations. But I don't remember anyone so inept in both domestic policy and foreign policy.

[skate]

LOL, that's just so well said; I'm gonna steal that brainstem reference.

at least you can spell

thank god:lol:

[46zilzal]

Don't have personal knowledge about their administrations. But I don't remember anyone so inept in both domestic policy and foreign policy.
then there is the DICK part one, and thankfully we will never get to see DICK part two other than his talking through the rutabaga.

Carter not even mentioned.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html
"Johnson, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Richard M. Nixon occupy the bottom rung, and now President Bush is a leading contender to join them."

[46zilzal]

or "Failure -- and this is what is hard, I think, for the American people to understand and one of the reasons why I appreciate talking to you is that people have got to understand that if we fail in Iraq, it is likely there will be safe haven from which people will be able to launch attacks from America."
-- Interview with PBS' Jim Lehrer, Jan. 16, 2007

[skate]

boy oh boy

this is xactely why we are having such a tuff time

[JustRalph]

I remember that. But right now I'm thinking of 22,000+ American soldiers wounded and 3,000+ dead for a WMD lie, and no end in sight..

chicken shit numbers in the big scheme.............we have lost the will to fight. That is what you should be worried about.

[46zilzal]

we have lost the will to fight. That is what you should be worried about.
If you believe in it so much, dust off those guns and join up!

[Secretariat]

chicken shit numbers in the big scheme.............we have lost the will to fight. That is what you should be worried about.

Tell that to the families of those 3000+ soldiers, and the 22,000 wounded. To refer to them as "chicken shit numbers in the big scheme" is an insult to their memories.

[46zilzal]

There is going to be one big fight coming up as the rutabaga has to follow his ideology in spite of reality shown day in, day out.

Can just imagine what is going to be in the speech on the morrow.

[Tom]

Tell that to the families of those 3000+ soldiers, and the 22,000 wounded. To refer to them as "chicken shit numbers in the big scheme" is an insult to their memories.

Like your having the gall to speak for them is not an insult? I have talked with guys serving there tight now - one on his second tour - a Phillino adopted by a friend of mine - who thinks people like YOU are a disgusting embarrasment to this country. He serves proudly, believes he is supporting his adopted country and would proudly lay down his life for his fellow troops. Another friend buried his son in November and is still believes strongly in what his son gave his life for. His grief is not overwhelmed by anger.

So perhaps you should speak for yourself and not attempt to pretend to speak for others.

[Tom]

There is going to be one big fight coming up as the rutabaga has to follow his ideology in spite of reality shown day in, day out.

Can just imagine what is going to be in the speech on the morrow.

"Bring it on?"

[PaceAdvantage]

Tell that to the families of those 3000+ soldiers, and the 22,000 wounded. To refer to them as "chicken shit numbers in the big scheme" is an insult to their memories.

He's making a point, one those on your side of the fence fail to comprehend. You walk around as if 3000 dead over three years in a war is some incomprehensible figure.

YES, they are all tragic, but it is not unusual given what is going on, nor is it extreme in number. In short, it is nothing that should cause one to quit and go home....

[Ponyplayr]

If you believe in it so much, dust off those guns and join up!
Oh my God!! What I would not give to go to Iraq!! I would kill every f'ing one of them! Send me!!!

[JustRalph]

If you believe in it so much, dust off those guns and join up!

I would go in a minute. Unlike you, I did my time. 5 years. I have an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

If they ever have a need for 46 year old Fat guys who can shoot the ass out of rat at a 100 yards.......... I am in.............. :lol:

[46zilzal]

Oh my God!! What I would not give to go to Iraq!! I would kill every f'ing one of them! Send me!!!
there are lots of 50+ year olds there

[Secretariat]

Like your having the gall to speak for them is not an insult? I have talked with guys serving there tight now - one on his second tour - a Phillino adopted by a friend of mine - who thinks people like YOU are a disgusting embarrasment to this country. He serves proudly, believes he is supporting his adopted country and would proudly lay down his life for his fellow troops. Another friend buried his son in November and is still believes strongly in what his son gave his life for. His grief is not overwhelmed by anger.

So perhaps you should speak for yourself and not attempt to pretend to speak for others.

You think you have a license on speaking with vets who've served there right now. Not all agree.

I am speaking for myself and for others who've spoke to me. I've talked with many vets and their familes. I've also served my country. For someone who beleives the only thing that he owes his country is to pay taxes you're the one who has the gall to speak for anyone.

Besides what the hell does your comment have to do with JR declaring that 3000+ dead and 22,000+ wounded is "chickenshit in the big scheme of things". Take off the skirt and stop being a Bush cheerleader.

[46zilzal]

Has He Started Talking to the Walls?
By Frank Rich

"It's not that he can't handle the truth about Iraq. He doesn't know what the truth is.

The most startling example was his insistence that Al Qaeda is primarily responsible for the country's spiraling violence. Only a week before Mr. Bush said this, the American military spokesman on the scene, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, called Al Qaeda "extremely disorganized" in Iraq, adding that "I would question at this point how effective they are at all at the state level." Military intelligence estimates that Al Qaeda makes up only 2 percent to 3 percent of the enemy forces in Iraq, according to Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News. The bottom line: America has a commander in chief who can't even identify some 97 percent to 98 percent of the combatants in a war."

[Tom]

You think you have a license on speaking with vets who've served there right now. Not all agree.



Exactly - yet YOU try to characterize them all as on your page. Like I said - speak for yourself.
And take off my skirt?
What are you, some kind of FOLEY?????? :lol:
Back off, stranger!

[Secretariat]

Has He Started Talking to the Walls?
By Frank Rich

"It's not that he can't handle the truth about Iraq. He doesn't know what the truth is.

The most startling example was his insistence that Al Qaeda is primarily responsible for the country's spiraling violence. Only a week before Mr. Bush said this, the American military spokesman on the scene, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, called Al Qaeda "extremely disorganized" in Iraq, adding that "I would question at this point how effective they are at all at the state level." Military intelligence estimates that Al Qaeda makes up only 2 percent to 3 percent of the enemy forces in Iraq, according to Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News. The bottom line: America has a commander in chief who can't even identify some 97 percent to 98 percent of the combatants in a war."

He knows what the truth is. He just can't admit he's wrong. He looked quite desperate at moments tonight. I'm just hoping this maniac is not going to lead us into significant American casualties.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm just hoping this maniac is not going to lead us into significant American casualties.

Why do I have a hard time believing this?

[Secretariat]

Why do I have a hard time believing this?

Just because he's failed every step of the way in terms of foreign policy I certainly don't want any Americans killed. Do you honestly beleive that simply because I disagree with this nut I would want soldiers killed? I don't get why so many Repubs just don't get it, and doubt Dem's beleif that this guys' policy and management of the war has led to so many unnecessary deaths. If we disagree it appears the cynics beleive we want casualties. The price of not walking blindfolded towards a cliff.

`Forward the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Some one had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do & die,
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

[JustRalph]

yep, so much blundering............55million people freed from Hussein and the Taliban.........such a blunder..........

[46zilzal]

yep, so much blundering............55million people freed from Hussein and the Taliban.........such a blunder..........
those people are FAR from free

[46zilzal]

the Dick is in a dreamworld too:
Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday dismissed as "hogwash" the idea that blunders may have hurt the administration's credibility on Iraq. In a CNN interview, Cheney said the administration is committed to moving ahead with its plan to send more troops to secure Baghdad, even if Congress passes a resolution in opposition.

[skate]

Has He Started Talking to the Walls?
By Frank Rich

"It's not that he can't handle the truth about Iraq. He doesn't know what the truth is.

The most startling example was his insistence that Al Qaeda is primarily responsible for the country's spiraling violence. Only a week before Mr. Bush said this, the American military spokesman on the scene, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, called Al Qaeda "extremely disorganized" in Iraq, adding that "I would question at this point how effective they are at all at the state level." Military intelligence estimates that Al Qaeda makes up only 2 percent to 3 percent of the enemy forces in Iraq, according to Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News. The bottom line: America has a commander in chief who can't even identify some 97 percent to 98 percent of the combatants in a war."

chubby checker has nothing on zilly.

get real, if you wanna deal...

[skate]

He knows what the truth is. He just can't admit he's wrong. He looked quite desperate at moments tonight. I'm just hoping this maniac is not going to lead us into significant American casualties.

Can't admit, you say, my god person.

admit,....?

just what id like to hear, so go about it, sec.
start admiting, ready set go....


here is a little help;
you people have been talking about Recession since 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and now 2007, really, can you believe that we have been digesting this bs about our economic situation for all these years.
Result, one big old Fat econmic USA!

seems like i should let youall know about Unclegeorge & Chainsaw stats for the usa economy;
double-digit corp profits, for 5 years. (after the recession, handed to him)
jobliss, a low 4.5%.
Rising real Wages.
57% of our companys, beat forth quarter expectations, so NO letup in site.

Now what is so important here? what i gave you are facts and these facts are contrary to what you here from the LIbs, dems, and Your TV news people, almost 100% of them. and you scream for Admit??

the war is still in progress, and the outcome is yet to be decided, yet, you people keep crying "we lost". and what? you think that helps the situation?
good god!



yah, gimmy gimmy gimmy, admit, just ONE Frig... time, huh?

you admit- guys make me ....:mad: no not mad,:confused: no, :bang: nope, you make me rich. go figure, but when You guys are wrong, you see, that makes me correct, and results say, being correct in this economy, makes Me (the skate) well it makes the skate "just what he is".:cool:

[46zilzal]

What thread is this "chicken scratch" supposed to go to? Great things: punctuation and capitals.

[skate]

Can't admit, you say, my god person.

admit,....?

just what id like to hear, so go about it, sec.
start admiting, ready set go....


here is a little help;
you people have been talking about Recession since 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and now 2007, really, can you believe that we have been digesting this bs about our economic situation for all these years.
Result, one big old Fat econmic USA!

seems like i should let youall know about Unclegeorge & Chainsaw stats for the usa economy;
double-digit corp profits, for 5 years. (after the recession, handed to him)
jobliss, a low 4.5%.
Rising real Wages.
57% of our companys, beat forth quarter expectations, so NO letup in site.

Now what is so important here? what i gave you are facts and these facts are contrary to what you here from the LIbs, dems, and Your TV news people, almost 100% of them. and you scream for Admit??

the war is still in progress, and the outcome is yet to be decided, yet, you people keep crying "we lost". and what? you think that helps the situation?
good god!



yah, gimmy gimmy gimmy, admit, just ONE Frig... time, huh?

you admit- guys make me ....:mad: no not mad,:confused: no, :bang: nope, you make me rich. go figure, but when You guys are wrong, you see, that makes me correct, and results say, being correct in this economy, makes Me (the skate) well it makes the skate "just what he is".:cool:


you see, admit is for past tense

[skate]

what thread is this "chicken scratch" supposed to go to?


your sock thread, it got holes:lol:

oh yah, i see you forgot something huh?

[46zilzal]

your sock thread, it got holes:lol:

oh yah, i see you forgot something huh?
What is a YAH?

[skate]

What thread is this "chicken scratch" supposed to go to? Great things: punctuation and capitals.

and, A, my "great things" are right here, cakes

so clear out

[46zilzal]

and, A, my "great things" are right here, cakes

so clear out
It really would have helped to finish that third grade writing course....It really shows in these abominable incoherent entries.

[skate]

a, try not to advertise , yah be better off

[46zilzal]

a, try not to advertise , yah be better off
"yah be better off"......Slang down at the gas station no doubt?

[skate]

It really would have helped to finish that third grade writing course....It really shows in these abominable incoherent entries.

youve abandon your own defense

=zero=zilly

[skate]

where are your boyfriends ? yah needs help, son

[46zilzal]

No, NO! to Bush's double down
By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
McClatchy Newspapers

Will Rogers said that the first thing you do when you find yourself in a hole is quit digging. All the signs out of the nation's capital indicate that President George W. Bush - who's in a very deep hole of his own making in Iraq - is about to ask for a bigger shovel.

[Secretariat]

No, NO! to Bush's double down
By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
McClatchy Newspapers

Will Rogers said that the first thing you do when you find yourself in a hole is quit digging. All the signs out of the nation's capital indicate that President George W. Bush - who's in a very deep hole of his own making in Iraq - is about to ask for a bigger shovel.

My God, let's just hope they don't purchase that shovel from Halliburton or he'll never get that budget balanced.

[PaceAdvantage]

Just because he's failed every step of the way in terms of foreign policy I certainly don't want any Americans killed. Do you honestly beleive that simply because I disagree with this nut I would want soldiers killed?

No, I don't believe that you want to see U.S. soldiers killed. But, I do think quite sincerely that you very much want to see Bush fail even more than you believe he already has.

And complete failure in Iraq will undoubtedly lead to even more soldiers being killed.

[Lefty]

No, NO! to Bush's double down
By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
McClatchy Newspapers

Will Rogers said that the first thing you do when you find yourself in a hole is quit digging. All the signs out of the nation's capital indicate that President George W. Bush - who's in a very deep hole of his own making in Iraq - is about to ask for a bigger shovel.
Typical leftwing animosity toward this Pres. Where's the mention of the terrorists? No mention of the accomplishement's in Iraq either.

[46zilzal]

BUT this is from Chuck Hagel:"I just want to mention one relevant, immediate fact. Front page of the New York Times....Here’s the headline, we talk about responsibility, here’s the headline, “Iraq Parliament Finds a Quorum Very Hard to Come By.” I don’t know how many of you saw this but let me read you a paragraph or two because what we are asking our young men and women to preserve and to protect is what I’m about to read:

“Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, the speaker of Parliament, read a roll call of the 275 elected members with a goal of shaming the no-shows.” Shaming the no-shows. Now this is the responsible Iraqi government that we’re asking our young men and women to die for, because they want their freedom and they want their future more than we do. “Parliament in recent months has been at a standstill.” Now this is the same Parliament the President boasted about last night. The same Iraqi government the President took great pride; we all took great pride in that pre-election. They’re a sovereign nation we say. They have responsibility as a sovereign nation to govern their nation. But yet they can’t get a quorum over the last four months to do business in their country at a time their country is disintegrating."

[Lefty]

zilly, our govt is over 200 yrs old and we can't even get dems who say they want bi-partisanship to support the Pres in a serious time of war. And we expect Iraq govt to run smoothly after only a few months? LOL

[46zilzal]

zilly, our govt is over 200 yrs old and we can't even get dems who say they want bi-partisanship to support the Pres in a serious time of war. And we expect Iraq govt to run smoothly after only a few months?
Why would ANYONE support a mental challenged idiot like the rutabaga?

[Lefty]

Why would ANYONE support a mental challenged idiot like the rutabaga?
All HATE and no substance.

[46zilzal]

All HATE and no substance.
don't know HOW often I have to tell you, I do not hate anyone, even you......I simply point out outrageous stupidity and that's what the Iraq war has been since day ONE.

[Secretariat]

But, I do think quite sincerely that you very much want to see Bush fail even more than you believe he already has.

And complete failure in Iraq will undoubtedly lead to even more soldiers being killed.

Well, then you think wrong. My response to Bush has been out of complete failure already, and a 2/3rds of the majority of this country dissatisfied with his record.

[Secretariat]

BUT this is from Chuck Hagel:"I just want to mention one relevant, immediate fact. Front page of the New York Times....Here’s the headline, we talk about responsibility, here’s the headline, “Iraq Parliament Finds a Quorum Very Hard to Come By.” I don’t know how many of you saw this but let me read you a paragraph or two because what we are asking our young men and women to preserve and to protect is what I’m about to read:

“Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, the speaker of Parliament, read a roll call of the 275 elected members with a goal of shaming the no-shows.” Shaming the no-shows. Now this is the responsible Iraqi government that we’re asking our young men and women to die for, because they want their freedom and they want their future more than we do. “Parliament in recent months has been at a standstill.” Now this is the same Parliament the President boasted about last night. The same Iraqi government the President took great pride; we all took great pride in that pre-election. They’re a sovereign nation we say. They have responsibility as a sovereign nation to govern their nation. But yet they can’t get a quorum over the last four months to do business in their country at a time their country is disintegrating."

Goes directly to the point. This is their country, and they can't be bothered. Being an occupying army in a country that doesn't want us there in the middle of their civil war is inane.

[Show Me the Wire]

Goes directly to the point. This is their country, and they can't be bothered. Being an occupying army in a country that doesn't want us there in the middle of their civil war is inane.

Do you think Iran or Syria would have any problem being there in the midst of a civil war?

[46zilzal]

No, I don't believe that you want to see U.S. soldiers killed. But, I do think quite sincerely that you very much want to see Bush fail even more than you believe he already has.

And complete failure in Iraq will undoubtedly lead to even more soldiers being killed.
no one Wants another to fail, they do that by themselves.

[skate]

sec thinks its silly to be in iraq

and zilly keeps saying the same thing over and over


what a couple of 'mouth breathers'

[hcap]

Hey skate youse takes da cakes. Whatever that means
Most of ther time it is almost impossible to decipher what you are babbling on about. Without a doubt the most incoherent on this board.

Now you call people mouth breathers. Both Secs and 46s' anger is well justified.

But not to worry I got your postcard.

http://mafia-skate.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/skate.gif.jpg

Watch those speed bumps :jump:

[JustRalph]

“Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, the speaker of Parliament, read a roll call of the 275 elected members with a goal of shaming the no-shows.” Shaming the no-shows. Now this is the responsible Iraqi government that we’re asking our young men and women to die for, because they want their freedom and they want their future more than we do. “Parliament in recent months has been at a standstill.” Now this is the same Parliament the President boasted about last night. The same Iraqi government the President took great pride; we all took great pride in that pre-election. They’re a sovereign nation we say. They have responsibility as a sovereign nation to govern their nation. But yet they can’t get a quorum over the last four months to do business in their country at a time their country is disintegrating."


precisely why I say they don't deserve their own sovereignty. We should take the country, make it a U.S. territory and start the economic boom that will come with developing the country while transferring our troops to line the border. Between the construction jobs and the oil we could all get rich.

The military bases alone would be worth it.

[46zilzal]

precisely why I say they don't deserve their own sovereignty. We should take the country, make it a U.S. territory and start the economic boom that will come with developing the country while transferring our troops to line the border. Between the construction jobs and the oil we could all get rich.

The military bases alone would be worth it.
Very imperial of you to advocate just stealing an entire country.

[Tom]

Let's back the Kurds - give them the oil, back them up as the only force in governemtn adn let the other two groups of idiots wipe themselves out. An Iraq wtih no Shiiteheads or S'moonies would be greata. And they all wnat top be martyrs, so it is a win-win-win situtaion.

Poor allah, he better line up a crap load 'o virgins. Rosie? war ya, gal?:kiss:

[PlanB]

lol, the Kurds are ruthless. Maybe 3 factions balance things out.

[Secretariat]

sec thinks its silly to be in iraq

and zilly keeps saying the same thing over and over


what a couple of 'mouth breathers'

If you'd looked the quote was from Republican Chck Hagel.

[Tom]

If you'd looked the quote was from Republican Chck Hagel.

Not anymore - we fired him! :jump:

[Lefty]

don't know HOW often I have to tell you, I do not hate anyone, even you......I simply point out outrageous stupidity and that's what the Iraq war has been since day ONE.
Your constant and childish namecalling of the Pres belies this statement. Going into Iraq was right thing to do for many reasons. Of course, noboldy on the left will admit it; not even the DEms who voted for the war. Outrageous. Instead of condemning the pres, i urge you to condemn the terrorists and the late Saddam, just once.

[betchatoo]

precisely why I say they don't deserve their own sovereignty. We should take the country, make it a U.S. territory and start the economic boom that will come with developing the country while transferring our troops to line the border. Between the construction jobs and the oil we could all get rich.

The military bases alone would be worth it.
We don't have enough troops to protect our own border. If we occupied Iraq (fully), what would we do in case of another military emergency?

[PlanB]

Let's back the Kurds - give them the oil, back them up as the only force in governemtn adn let the other two groups of idiots wipe themselves out. An Iraq wtih no Shiiteheads or S'moonies would be greata. And they all wnat top be martyrs, so it is a win-win-win situtaion.

Poor allah, he better line up a crap load 'o virgins. Rosie? war ya, gal?:kiss:

LOL, yeah, flying-carpet load of virgins sounds better, but your plan is A+.

[JustRalph]

We don't have enough troops to protect our own border. If we occupied Iraq (fully), what would we do in case of another military emergency?

we have plenty of troops ..........55k in Korea........28k more being redeployed from germany next year...........no problem.......if we use the air force the right way

[delayjf]

I remember that. But right now I'm thinking of 22,000+ American soldiers wounded and 3,000+ dead for a WMD lie, and no end in sight..

You might also consider the lives saved by taking the attack to the enemy. Unfortunately we'll never know those numbers.

Once again, our involvement in Iraq smoked the WMD program out of Libya, I know your trying hard to ignore that, but it is a fact.

[Secretariat]

You might also consider the lives saved by taking the attack to the enemy. Unfortunately we'll never know those numbers.

Once again, our involvement in Iraq smoked the WMD program out of Libya, I know your trying hard to ignore that, but it is a fact.

You're right about one thing. We don't know of any lives saved by taking the attack to the enemy. "Facts" are as you state however, that 3000K+ American soldiers are dead and 22000K+ wounded. These figures only include combat related fatalities. They also do not include the number of Iraqi soldiers, Iraqi policemen and Iraqi cilvians or coalition soldiers killed. so the fact is thousands upon thousands of people have been killed, and thousands upon thousands have been wounded, and you are unable to say the number of lives that were saved based on a reason for going to war that GW now admits was wrong. Priceless.

As to Qaddaffi who I trust no more than I did Hussein, here is what the Guardian said back then when Qaddaffi was caught transporting materials, AND after years of UN sanctions, and after negotiations with the Brits since 1999.

"...It was achieved by discussion--by endless talk, mostly in London, latterly in Libya, and finally in a London gentlemen's club. Boring perhaps, but effective; and here, with shock and awe, is a lesson for the Pentagon to absorb.... As Libya has indicated, the Iraq war actually made agreement more difficult; it was eventually reached despite, not because of, Iraq. If anything, it now seems Mr. Bush may have inadvertently invaded the wrong country. The fabled WMD were in Libya all along. All the more reason, next time around, for preferring words to guns and gung-ho."

- The Guardian, 12/22/2003

[skate]

If you'd looked the quote was from Republican Chck Hagel.

yeh, chck hagel, aint that the guy hangs out with Hicup. i seen em eating squirrel barbecues on a raccoons stick.:D

just gimmy room


and,a , you need a little editing.
and i aint xactly in lock step with your quotationing- buds...

mater of factly, hes just about to jump, says the skate.

[hcap]

Hey skate, I'm a democrat. But I wouldn't mind hangin with Hagel.
He's got balls. Unlike some illiterate babbling fools

"just gimmy room

and,a , you need a little editing.
and i aint xactly in lock step with your quotationing- buds...

mater of factly, hes just about to jump, says the skate.Ever think about hiring a ghost writer?
How'bout a ghost thinker?

[skate]

Hey skate, I'm a democrat. But I wouldn't mind hangin with Hagel.
He's got balls. Unlike some illiterate babbling fools

Ever think about hiring a ghost writer?
How'bout a ghost thinker?

ah, hey yoo, hicup, i said you were eating squirrel. ididnt mean you were checking out his Balls, come on!

[Tom]

:lol::lol::lol:

Some threads just evolve into pure delight!

[bigmack]

ah, hey yoo, hicup, i said you were eating squirrel. ididnt mean you were checking out his Balls, come on!
What the H-E double hockey sticks is going on over here?
(T, your mailbox is full)

http://www.schpaa.com/humor/files/big_balls.jpg

[hcap]

Booze on the top shelf, boyfriend beckoning, ready for a hot time are we skate?

http://mafia-skate.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/skate.gif.jpg

"destroying the english language one clever post at a time"

[delayjf]

"...It was achieved by discussion--by endless talk, mostly in London, latterly in Libya, and finally in a London gentlemen's club. Boring perhaps, but effective; and here, with shock and awe, is a lesson for the Pentagon to absorb.... As Libya has indicated, the Iraq war actually made agreement more difficult; it was eventually reached despite, not because of, Iraq.

Indeed.. but those "talks" began on or about (Mar 03), and while intel indicated that yes they were interested in a WMD program for up to 30 years, nobody knew to what extent that Libya had gone and exactly how far advanced the programs were.

The effects of economic sanctions had also taken its toll. Apparently the can work, assuming the the UN is not on the take as was the case in Iraq. But, It was not until the ship was intercepted with the centifuge equipment (Oct 03)that Libya was finally willing to come clean. Perhaps, the numerous aircraft carriers cruising the Med provided the "proper motivation". Bottom line, it was an expensive program and was hurting their economy, 911 had turned up everything up a notch Iraq showed the US was not going to sit by and allow Terrorist sponsoring Nations to develop WMD. Libya did not want to suffer the same fate as Iraq.

[46zilzal]

Maureen Dowd (New York Times) on Cheney, who is after all, pulling his strings:"Only someone with an inspired alienation from reality could, under the guise of exorcising the trauma of Vietnam, replicate the trauma of Vietnam. You must have a real talent for derangement to stay wrong every step of the way, to remain in complete denial about Iraq’s civil war, to have a total misunderstanding of Arab culture, to be completely oblivious to the American mood and to be absolutely blind to how democracy works....Mr. Cheney acts more like a member of the James gang than the Jefferson gang. Asked by Wolf what would happen if the Senate passed a resolution critical of The Surge, Scary Cheney rumbled, “It won’t stop us.”...

It is W. and Vice who learned no lessons from Vietnam, probably because they worked so hard to avoid going. They rush into a war halfway around the world for no reason and with no foresight about the culture or the inevitable insurgency, and then assert that any criticism of their fumbling management of Iraq and Afghanistan is tantamount to criticizing the troops. Quel demagoguery....After offering Congress an olive branch in the State of the Union, the president resumed mindless swaggering. Asked yesterday why he was ratcheting up despite the resolutions, W. replied, “In that I’m the decision maker, I had to come up with a way forward that precluded disaster.” (Or preordained it.)

[JustRalph]

Maureen Dowd? :lol:

give me a break.......rush over and read Eleanor Clift, and hurry!

[delayjf]

Gee what a surprise, Maureen O’Dowd disagrees with the President. Like so much that seems to escape her, obviously so does the definition of a “non-binding” resolution. Point of fact, a simple resolution does not stop the President from conducting the war. VP Cheney was simply stating the obvious. If the Dems believe so strongly, they should step up and defund the war and suffer the political consequences.

With regards to the lack of understanding Arab culture, what does she think would happen if we did abruptly pull out? Obviously she doesn’t care one lick about the blood shed that would ensue. Nor, does she offer any alternatives, much like the party she’s in bed with. Comparing Vietnam to Iraq may get her kudos from the Hanoi Jane school of politics. The only thing I get from the article is: she doesn’t have a clue.

[Tom]

What the H-E double hockey sticks is going on over here?
(T, your mailbox is full)

http://www.schpaa.com/humor/files/big_balls.jpg




CAUTION: MAY CONTAIN NUTS

[JustRalph]

That is Jihad Jane now..............

[Secretariat]

Maureen Dowd (New York Times) on Cheney, who is after all, pulling his strings:"Only someone with an inspired alienation from reality could, under the guise of exorcising the trauma of Vietnam, replicate the trauma of Vietnam. You must have a real talent for derangement to stay wrong every step of the way, to remain in complete denial about Iraq’s civil war, to have a total misunderstanding of Arab culture, to be completely oblivious to the American mood and to be absolutely blind to how democracy works....Mr. Cheney acts more like a member of the James gang than the Jefferson gang. Asked by Wolf what would happen if the Senate passed a resolution critical of The Surge, Scary Cheney rumbled, “It won’t stop us.”...

It is W. and Vice who learned no lessons from Vietnam, probably because they worked so hard to avoid going. They rush into a war halfway around the world for no reason and with no foresight about the culture or the inevitable insurgency, and then assert that any criticism of their fumbling management of Iraq and Afghanistan is tantamount to criticizing the troops. Quel demagoguery....After offering Congress an olive branch in the State of the Union, the president resumed mindless swaggering. Asked yesterday why he was ratcheting up despite the resolutions, W. replied, “In that I’m the decision maker, I had to come up with a way forward that precluded disaster.” (Or preordained it.)

I liked what Biden said about Cheney. "Has he ever been right during this administration about anything?" Another good quote by him was, "It's not differnces of opnion in this country that emboldens terrorists, it is failed policy that emboldens terrorists."

[Tom]

Biden? How many times has that loser run for pres?
Look, if you had to name the dumbest senator, who else could it be but Biden?

Yoju don't think the terroists are salivating at the thought of the spinless wooses called dems now in power? You don' think the terrosits look at Biden, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi and laugh thier asses off? I wouldn't be suprises is North Viet Nam didn't start up some shit knowing KERRY is the majority! The ole garbage scow pilot himself!

[Steve 'StatMan']

I liked what Biden said about Cheney. "Has he ever been right during this administration about anything?" Another good quote by him was, "It's not differnces of opnion in this country that emboldens terrorists, it is failed policy that emboldens terrorists."

That last one is profound. Did Biden come up with these by himself?

Enough has been done by the Democrats, the Liberal Media, and all the overzealous, to make sure that this policy, or frankly andy policy that involved hands on action, would fail. So far, Obastard Bin Laden has been proven right, much to my disappointment.

[Lefty]

Whomever Biden "stole" the quote from was also wrong. Seeing a country divided emboldens the terrorists. How can you call it a failed policy? Ain't over yet and only the left can cause us to fail.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Whomever Biden "stole" the quote from was also wrong. Seeing a country divided emboldens the terrorists. How can you call it a failed policy? Ain't over yet and only the left can cause us to fail.

Yes, because the left is falling all over itself already, fighting each other to show who amongst them is the most themselves are the most likely NOT to take strong, pro-active, hands on military intervention that might cost american lives and tax dollars.

Now a lot of the leaders on the right are also falling all over themselves as well, trying to distance themselves as well. Trying to come up with their own version to increase their election/reelection chances in 2 more years.

[Secretariat]

Whomever Biden "stole" the quote from was also wrong. Seeing a country divided emboldens the terrorists. How can you call it a failed policy? Ain't over yet and only the left can cause us to fail.

Failed policy emboldens terrorists Lefty. Brian Freeman knew. Here's Senator Chris Dodd's speech on the Senate floor. Read it carefully, as Rush won't cover this, nor will the major news media.

"About a month ago, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and I were in the Middle East, and at sundown on an evening in Baghdad, as we landed in our helicopter in the Green Zone, a young man walked up to Senator Kerry and me. I could hardly see him. He was about 6 feet 2 inches, 6 feet 3 inches, a captain, and a West Point graduate. He talked to us about his concerns and what was going on in Iraq. This was back in the mid part of December before the Christmas holidays. His name was Brian Freeman.

The conversation did not last very long. It was not one of those long conversations. It may have lasted 15, 20 minutes, at best. I do not even have a clear picture in my mind of what he looked like because it was dark, as the conversation went on for 15 or 20 minutes. But it is one of those meetings all of us have had in our lives, where you do not forget a person, an individual. For whatever reason, he was compelling, he was sincere. He sought us out. He wanted us to know how he felt about what was happening in Iraq.

I mentioned him on 'Meet the Press' a few weeks later in talking about Iraq. I did not mention his name. I did not wish to put him in that position. But I talked about this young Army captain, a West Point graduate, whom I met. He apparently saw the program in Baghdad and e-mailed me, and we began this conversation between my office and himself over the last month or so, in which we talked about the surge, and he talked about the problems associated with it, the jobs he was being asked to do.

He said to me -- I am quoting him now --

"Senator, it's nuts over here. Soldiers are being asked to do work we're not trained to do. I'm doing work that the State Department people are far more prepared to do in fostering democracy, but they're not allowed to come off the bases because it's too dangerous here. It doesn't make any sense."

Captain Brian Freeman, a West Point graduate, was killed in Iraq last Saturday.

I have spoken to his family over the last number of days, his wife Charlotte, his two young children, his parents and his in-laws, trying to express on behalf, I am sure, of all us the sense of grief we feel about this young man's loss of life and his contribution to our country.

I cannot tell you how exciting it was for me to meet him. This young man had nothing but potential and a great interest in seeing his country do better and grow stronger. And he wanted to be a part of it and make a contribution to our land.

Today, I am here to say enough is enough. I think all of us feel this way. We are coming to a point next week when we will have a debate about this. We are going to discuss various resolutions before us. I firmly believe we have to do everything we possibly can to ensure that the tragedy of Brian Freeman does not continue to be replicated over and over again. That is why we must say no, in my view, to the decision by the President of the United States to send thousands more of our brave young men and women in uniform to the streets of Baghdad to risk their lives for a plan which just "doesn't make any sense," to quote Brian Freeman.

I, as one Senator, intend to speak loudly, as I have already, against this ill-conceived policy. But more than just speak out, I intend, at every available opportunity, to ask this body and the other body to go on record in a meaningful way against the President's specific decision to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq and against the continuation of our failed military strategy in Iraq.

Talking to Brian Freeman's family in Utah the other night was painful. His 14-month-old and his 3-year-old don't
have a father any longer," said Dodd to his Senate colleagues. "Our country lost a wonderful young man whom Senator Kerry and I had the privilege of meeting for such a brief time. But both of us were profoundly affected by his courage and commitment."

"I say to them and others that in this body we will stand up in the coming days and bring an end to this insanity."

....

And here's a guy killed on his FOURTH Deployment.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/01/27/woburn_mourns_a_fallen_soldier/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Globe+North

"bring an end to this insanity."

[46zilzal]

"bring an end to this insanity."
"What will George W. Bush's war on terrorism in Iraq finally accomplish? First and foremost, no terrorists existed in Iraq. Therefore, he didn't do anything to stop terrorism. The act of 9/11 explains their responses to our behaviors more than we would like to consider. Insanity prevails on both sides.

However, Bush-43 sacrifices hundreds of thousands of lives and destroys hundreds of thousands of family units with pain and suffering - to kill one dictator out of dozens in the world. An assassin could have done that job."

"Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear -- kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor -- with the cry of grave national emergency. Always, there has been some terrible evil at home, or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it." General Douglas MacArthur

[Tom]

Let's face some facts - the last thing the dems want is ANY kind of success in Iraq. It would hurt them in 2008, and that is all they carea about - the troops do not enter into thier REAL concern at all.

And that's the bottom line.

Show some balls, dem - you think this is insanity, then stand up and do someting about it - not a non binding resolution - do something REAL. Cut the funding - MAKE Bush bring home the troops.

Your "boys" won't do that because that would make THEM responsible for the consequences, and we all know, no dem will stand up and do anything that requries ball.
Bunch of pantywaists cowards - all in one swiftboat, like clown in a little car.
All talk, no walk.

[skate]

Booze on the top shelf, boyfriend beckoning, ready for a hot time are we skate?

http://mafia-skate.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/skate.gif.jpg

"destroying the english language one clever post at a time"


"Never could I trust a man/woman that could only spell a wurd one way"

bf

[skate]

What the H-E double hockey sticks is going on over here?
(T, your mailbox is full)

http://www.schpaa.com/humor/files/big_balls.jpg



ah haa!
no wonder hes got the Hicups.:lol:

one beautiful squirrel for ya, hics. hicks and hagel...

[JustRalph]

Failed policy emboldens terrorists Lefty. Brian Freeman knew. Here's Senator Chris Dodd's speech on the Senate floor. Read it carefully, as Rush won't cover this, nor will the major news media.


When you are running a war, you don't pull out the stops for one Captain who got killed. It is a damn shame, but 3k Troops are dead. That is what I get from your story about Kerry and Dodd. One Captain died. He isn't the first and he won't be last. It is a war. You run it like a war. Not like a Public relations campaign.

[PlanB]

It is a war. You run it like a war. Not like a Public relations campaign.

I agree JR & that's why we will lose all of it, soon, yes, the eventual 2 TRILLION DOLLARS, for zero gain, because 43 didn't realize he started a WAR, he thought it was a walk-over. Under-staffed; Under-Equipped; Under-Understood. That's the real pity of his arrogance, as a draft dodger (with Cheney et al). In essence these guys never fight/fought & no nothing of battle. Just look at how Dick C. hunts ducks.

[skate]

I agree JR & that's why we will lose all of it, soon, yes, the eventual 2 TRILLION DOLLARS, for zero gain, because 43 didn't realize he started a WAR, he thought it was a walk-over. Under-staffed; Under-Equipped; Under-Understood. That's the real pity of his arrogance, as a draft dodger (with Cheney et al). In essence these guys never fight/fought & no nothing of battle. Just look at how Dick C. hunts ducks.


ive said before, we will win... should be enough...

but wait till we hear about the Burglar Sammy Shammy. im guessing it has something to do about the 40% cut-back in Military equipment.

with that in mind, how the hell can anyone complain when they say we were short on eguipment?

[PlanB]

Your post is beyond comprehension.

[46zilzal]

Your post is beyond comprehension.
And we don't even have a translator!

[46zilzal]

From Alternet By Joshua Holland, October 9, 2006.
: "Underlying the "stay the course" argument is a fundamentally flawed assumption that U.S. troops are at least keeping havoc in check. But every year of the occupation has brought about worsening violence, peaking during a summer that saw thousands of Iraqi civilians killed each month. The Washington Post reported that last month "the number of U.S. troops wounded in Iraq has surged to its highest monthly level in nearly two years," and Reuters added that "bomb attacks in Baghdad have hit an all-time high ..." Studies by the Saudi government and a respected (and hawkish) Israeli think tank found that most of the insurgents in Iraq had never engaged in political violence but were radicalized by the occupation itself. The recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate predicts that with American troops on the ground, the insurgency in Iraq will grow and fester over the next two years."

[Secretariat]

...It is a war. You run it like a war. Not like a Public relations campaign.

Tell that to Tony Snow.

[PlanB]

I don't know how you were perverted; maybe inverted. Perhaps just diverted. I weep for you 43, maybe because I saw the photographs of our fallen soldiers, the crowd of people just turned away, but I would love to turn you on, but I realized how late I was, so I went back into a dream, had a smoke, then just chanted AHHHHHHHHHHH............... I read the Times today, oh boy, they had to count them all, but I still want to turn Y O U ...........

[bigmack]

Bunch of pantywaists cowards - all in one swiftboat, like clown in a little car.
Now look what you've done - You've upset Freddy

[Lefty]

sec, name a war that didn't have failed policies. The Revolutionary war was a mess. The Civil war was a mess. WW11 was a mess. That's the nature of war. But the Dems that voted for this war are against it for purely political reason and in my mind that's treason. Only we at home can lose this war, not our brave troops who actually are doing the fighting and suffering while Hillary and others are lying their asses off for the sake of power.

[Secretariat]

sec, name a war that didn't have failed policies. The Revolutionary war was a mess. The Civil war was a mess. WW11 was a mess. That's the nature of war. But the Dems that voted for this war are against it for purely political reason and in my mind that's treason. Only we at home can lose this war, not our brave troops who actually are doing the fighting and suffering while Hillary and others are lying their asses off for the sake of power.

Lefty,

The Revoultionary War was over in a shorter time than this one. We took on the premier power in the world, and beat them. In WW II we declared war against Germany AND Japan, two of the largest miltiary powers in the world, and it was over in 4 years. The Civil War was an act of treason against the Union with the firing on Fort Sumter and was over in four years.

Here we have a war with a nation that NEVER attacked us, did not participate in 911, is in the throes of a Civil War. Tell me who the true liars are. Bush's and Cheney's reasons for war were wrong. Lefty, stop equating the duty that honorable soldiers commit to the failed policies of an administration that has no children in those wars.

[Secretariat]

Let's face some facts - the last thing the dems want is ANY kind of success in Iraq. It would hurt them in 2008, and that is all they carea about - the troops do not enter into thier REAL concern at all.

And that's the bottom line.

Show some balls, dem - you think this is insanity, then stand up and do someting about it - not a non binding resolution - do something REAL. Cut the funding - MAKE Bush bring home the troops.

Your "boys" won't do that because that would make THEM responsible for the consequences, and we all know, no dem will stand up and do anything that requries ball.
Bunch of pantywaists cowards - all in one swiftboat, like clown in a little car.
All talk, no walk.

I agree with this Tom. The rumor is Russ Feingold is going to introduce a bill to cut off funding later this week. Whether it will happen or not I do not know. I hope it does cometo vote (even though it will be defeated) as I'm sure you do as well, as it will put everyone on record inclduing two faced Hillary.

[JustRalph]

Lefty,

The Revoultionary War was over in a shorter time than this one. We took on the premier power in the world, and beat them.

yes, and there was infighting amongst the colonies for ten years!

Many wanted to go back to "the crown" when men who signed the Declaration of Independence were being persecuted and such. We got thru it. There was much infighting after the Rev. War. Sound familiar?

[Lefty]

sec, then the dems that voted for the war and funded the war were as wrong as Bush and Cheney but you libs just keep ragging on Bush while your cowardly dems trying to meely mouth their way out. The enemy is different here, no uniforms. This a very diff war and more dangerous war than we have ever fght before. Our enemy is dedicated and we better be too.
Getting sick of hearing the lie that Iraq not involved in 9-11 or terrorism. Zarquari was very much in Iraq and Saddam very much involved in funding terrorists and he was trying to get a nuke whether the lying dems want to cop to it or not.
We are in this war and we better damn well win it.

[46zilzal]

dems libs dems..nothing's changed. One reason for all the world's problems. Ah if it were that simple as the black and white world of Nevada.

[46zilzal]

these guys are at the helm...no wonder it is a mess.

[PlanB]

Are my eyes getting sleepy or is 43 sitting on Vice's knee?

[PaceAdvantage]

I agree JR & that's why we will lose all of it, soon, yes, the eventual 2 TRILLION DOLLARS, for zero gain, because 43 didn't realize he started a WAR, he thought it was a walk-over.

It was a walkover. Or did you forget how easy a march it was into Baghdad?

You people are not very good students of history, are you?

There is no war going on anymore. The war ended a long time ago. It was over quite quickly. When you are at war with a country, and you march in and take over their capital and eliminate their leader, that pretty much says "Game Over!"

What's going on now isn't a war, at least not in the traditional sense. That part was OVER a long time ago. A walkover indeed.....

[Secretariat]

yes, and there was infighting amongst the colonies for ten years!

Many wanted to go back to "the crown" when men who signed the Declaration of Independence were being persecuted and such. We got thru it. There was much infighting after the Rev. War. Sound familiar?

Thanks JR for making my point. Then we should leave Iraqis to their infighting as we did Americans in our own Revolutionary war. Well stated.

[Secretariat]

...This a very diff war and more dangerous war than we have ever fght before. Our enemy is dedicated and we better be too.

Getting sick of hearing the lie that Iraq not involved in 9-11 or terrorism. ...

As to point one. That is just absurd. Are you actually trying to say that the Iraq War is more dangerous than the original fight for independence in the Revolutionary War, or the divided nation of our own Civil War or either World War, or the risk posed from China's or the Soviet Union's intervention in the Korean War, or the decade long loss of 60,000 lives lost in Vietnam? Lefty, time for a reality check.

And on point two....why do you not beleive your President. I am surpsied. He's gone on record saying Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Has he now become a lib to you? Stop the 2002 platitudes and do some research.

[Secretariat]

these guys are at the helm...no wonder it is a mess.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I guess these guys are as lost as Skipper and little buddy.

[delayjf]

Sec,

The Pres went on record and said Iraq had no role in 9/11, which they did not. He did say they were funding terrorists, which they were.

Do you think the US was justified in the first Gulf War? I assume not in as much as we (the US ) was not directly attacked.

Here's a reality check - What do you think would happen if Iran or Irag or Libya, etc were able to develop a nuclear bomb, How do you think Israel would respond. What would be the consequences of that response??


Bye the Bye; the American Revolution lasted 6 years. 1775-1781.

[46zilzal]

outlined a long time ago. He told people about this stupidity awhile back.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020715/falk

[skate]

It was a walkover. Or did you forget how easy a march it was into Baghdad?

You people are not very good students of history, are you?

There is no war going on anymore. The war ended a long time ago. It was over quite quickly. When you are at war with a country, and you march in and take over their capital and eliminate their leader, that pretty much says "Game Over!"

What's going on now isn't a war, at least not in the traditional sense. That part was OVER a long time ago. A walkover indeed.....


now what has me pissed, why didnt i say that first, damn. indeedly.

[JustRalph]

Thanks JR for making my point. Then we should leave Iraqis to their infighting as we did Americans in our own Revolutionary war. Well stated.

your reply doesn't even make sense.

[Secretariat]

There is no war going on anymore. The war ended a long time ago. It was over quite quickly. When you are at war with a country, and you march in and take over their capital and eliminate their leader, that pretty much says "Game Over!"

What's going on now isn't a war, at least not in the traditional sense. That part was OVER a long time ago. A walkover indeed.....

Unfortunately, I wish you were correct. However, the President and Cognress still define this as a war going on.

[skate]

ive said before, we will win... should be enough...

but wait till we hear about the Burglar Sammy Shammy. im guessing it has something to do about the 40% cut-back in Military equipment.

with that in mind, how the hell can anyone complain when they say we were short on eguipment?


planb;

you said under staffed, under equiped etc.

one would expect you to be able to put things in proper context. you have not.
because the reason that unclegeorge was short on supplies etc. was because the budget wwas cut previously by c.

and then you guys/gals try to influence the issue by saying uncle george does not admit....

why dont you admit, put the issues in proper context or forgetit...

gaddds

[Secretariat]

Sec,

The Pres went on record and said Iraq had no role in 9/11, which they did not. He did say they were funding terrorists, which they were.

But not terrorists engaged in actions aginst the national security of the US. Remember GW posed this as a grave threat to "our" national security. It was a lie. As was the original Cheney accusations of Iraq involvement with the 911, as was the Niger uranium lie. Lefty, needs to wake up already that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Even Cheney is admitting that now, and for God's sake, he even shot a man in the face.

Do you think the US was justified in the first Gulf War? I assume not in as much as we (the US ) was not directly attacked.

This is good question. I do think it was justified based on the 1980 Carter doctrine when our allies borders are breached by other nation's armies. btw..that did not happen in this war with Iraq. Their armies did not breach Kuwait's border. Despite the lies by the Citizens for a Free Kuwait to Congress about Iraq soldiers pulling babies out of incubators, Bush "I" realized what the UN advocated which was Iraq out of Kuwait, an emir monarchy that was invaded. And despite the citizens for a Free Kuwait, it remains an emir monarchy. The Senate vote was close 52-47. Iraq declared that Kuwait was a part of Iraq and had broken off illegally years earlier. Becasue there was such a strong united front by the Arab and muslim community which acually participated in this action a strong coaltion was mustered which had broad international support unlike this mess. But the key to the success of that mission was Bush I completing the mission and leaving once the the mission was actually accomplished.

Both Cheney and Bush I advised on the dangers of going to Iraq after forcing Iraq behind their borders. Unfortinately his son diod not listen and now we've got a real mess exactly as predicted.

Here's a reality check - What do you think would happen if Iran or Irag or Libya, etc were able to develop a nuclear bomb, How do you think Israel would respond. What would be the consequences of that response??


Well, since Notth Korea and Pakistan already have one, and Russia has thousands and Chinese has hundreds, and Israel has its own, it's something we have to live with. We just sold nuclear devices to India.

THey have no missles to deliver a bomb to us. The dirty bomb posiblity exists, but so does an anthrax attack or an internal terrorist much like the unabomber or a McVeigh type of attack. If Israel decides to respond that is their perogative. However, they are bound to accept the consequences of that action. Israel is not the 51st state. Iraq, and Libya's proven nucealr capability has been proven laughable. Iran does not have a weapon and no method of delivery. Strong UN santions and good intelligence are necessary this time, not knne jerk cowboy reactions.


Bye the Bye; the American Revolution lasted 6 years. 1775-1781.

You are correct. A group of minutemen took on the greatest power on earth and over six years whooped them. Now if you want to compare the Iraqis determination without our help to the minutemen, I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

[Secretariat]

your reply doesn't even make sense.

JR, This is what you said.

yes, and there was infighting amongst the colonies for ten years!

Many wanted to go back to "the crown" when men who signed the Declaration of Independence were being persecuted and such. We got thru it. There was much infighting after the Rev. War. Sound familiar?

My point is that it was Americans who did the "infighting" between the freedom fighters and the loyalists. But it was americans doing the infighting. Not the French, not any other country.

All I'm asking is we give Iraqis the same right to do their own infighting.

[delayjf]

Well, since Notth Korea and Pakistan already have one, and Russia has thousands and Chinese has hundreds, and Israel has its own, it's something we have to live with. We just sold nuclear devices to India.

Yes, but the above mentioned countries are not openly and publicly advocating Israel’s destruction. A nuclear confrontation in the Middle East would play havoc with the world’s economies, not to mention the loss of life. Iran is seeking to advance their missile technology. No they will not be able to reach the US, but these days given our porous borders, who needs a missile.

Given 9/11 and given the intel Bush had at the time even if there was evidence to the contrary, as President, can you take that chance?
There is also a strategic benefit – The invasion puts the US in a much stronger position to deal with Iran and IMHO, it flushed out Libya’s WMD program as well.

If President Bush did in fact manufacture intel to support the war and therefore lied to the American people knowing full well that there were no WMD in Iraq. Don't you think He or somebody on his staff would have advised him to plant the evidence of WMD in Iraq, just in case? The fact that they have not found them is proof they were sincere in their belief that they existed.

If I knew for a fact that their were no WMD and I went before the American People and lied to get their support for the war – All for the purposes of lining my pockets with oil / Halliburton revenue. You can be damn good and sure that I’d cover my ass by insuring that our Troops would find something.

[PlanB]

now what has me pissed, why didnt i say that first, damn. indeedly.

Oh man, you seem devoted to dumb posts. Why would anyone agree with that drivel? It's Not a War? Why don't you go back on every post here & count how many times the word WAR has been typed & how no objections were raised to the term IRAQ WAR.

[46zilzal]

Vietnam Echoes

* According to current estimates, the cost of the Iraq War could exceed $700 billion. In current dollars, the Vietnam War cost U.S. taxpayers $600 billion.
* Operations costs in Iraq are estimated at $5.6 billion per month in 2005. By comparison, the average cost of U.S. operations in Vietnam over the eight-year war was $5.1 billion per month, adjusting for inflation.
* Staying in Iraq and Afghanistan at current levels would nearly double the projected federal budget deficit over the next decade.
* Since 2001, the U.S. has deployed more than 1 million troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.
* Broken down per person in the United States, the cost so far is $727, making the Iraq War the most expensive military effort in the last 60 years.
* The number of journalists killed reporting the Iraq War (66) has exceeded the number of journalists killed reporting on the Vietnam War (63).

[46zilzal]

from the Johns Hopskins Newsletter by Patrick Kennedy:
Those who followed the early days of the war in Iraq might remember Mohammed Saeed al-Sharaf, or as he is better known, Baghdad Bob. The Minister of Information while Saddam Hussein was still in power, Bagdad Bob filled the airwaves with reports of glorious, rousing and completely fictitious Iraqi victories. Even as the coalition of the willing closed in on the capital, the Minister of Misinformation claimed that "there is nothing going on," declaring that Iraq had "killed most of the infidels."

Ironically, as the situation for the U.S. forces in Iraq has continued to deteriorate, America's leaders have attempted to conceal any and all bad news, Baghdad Bob-style. Our country even has its own minister of myth. You have probably seen him on television or heard him on the radio. You might have even watched him at a rally, in person, talking about our dubious progress in Iraq.

His name is George W. Bush.

[delayjf]

The cost of keeping this country safe for democracy - PRICELESS.

[PlanB]

The cost of keeping this country safe for democracy - PRICELESS.

I AGREE. TOTALLY & WITHOUT RESERVATIONS.

[Secretariat]

Yes, but the above mentioned countries are not openly and publicly advocating Israel’s destruction.

Almost every radical Muslim terrorist group has been chanting Death to Israel for as long as I remember. Al Queda could get nuclear material or a bomb. Hamas or Hezbollah could load a nuclear device (suitcase bomb) on a suicide bomber. Pakistan could throw out Musharraf and install a Taliban type regime and have nuclear weapons with a delivery system. The nightmare scenarios are endless. You're basing your premise "fear" and on two major errors. One, there is in fact no intelligence that Iran actually has a bomb or is close to one. Two, the issue is Israel's. We've already mistakenly invaded a country that had nothing to do with 911 or had crossed a border since 1991 and had committed no terrorist act against the US. Let Iraq and Israel and Iran take care of themsevles and their own problems. We've got plenty of our own.


Given 9/11 and given the intel Bush had at the time even if there was evidence to the contrary, as President, can you take that chance?

Sure you can. Our national security was not threatened by Iraq. Even GW backpedaled after his mistake trying to say he never said the word imminent. In other words Iraq was deemed by him as NOT an imminent threat to the US. Yet, he masked it with many other words to try and give the illusion like grave threat , etc. Pure manipulation. People see through it now and don't appreciate being manipulated.


There is also a strategic benefit – The invasion puts the US in a much stronger position to deal with Iran and IMHO, it flushed out Libya’s WMD program as well.

Well, I've put up an article previously which contradicts your Libya opinion, but please don't tell me we just lost 3000 people and 22000 wounded for an aferthought strategic benefit.



If President Bush did in fact manufacture intel to support the war and therefore lied to the American people knowing full well that there were no WMD in Iraq. Don't you think He or somebody on his staff would have advised him to plant the evidence of WMD in Iraq, just in case? The fact that they have not found them is proof they were sincere in their belief that they existed.

So let me get this right. You're saying that not only should the Predient have lied to the public, he should have "planted" phony WMDs on the ground! Wow, do you realize what you just wrote. Are you advocating that he risk committing a fraud on the American people when in fact with simple lying he could always use a plausible deniability argument such as "bad intelligence". Delay, if he had been caught doing that..he'd be in prison. Are you serious with this assertion? He did claim multiple times he did find WMD's (even under his desk) which were always debunked.



If I knew for a fact that their were no WMD and I went before the American People and lied to get their support for the war – All for the purposes of lining my pockets with oil / Halliburton revenue. You can be damn good and sure that I’d cover my ass by insuring that our Troops would find something.

Thank God, you're not the President then. We don't need someone planting WMD's in foreign hostile countries to score political points at home.

....

I'm glad you beleive protecting our democracy is priceless. Then listen to the "majority of the people" who 2/1 are now clamoring for GW to get out of Iraq. After all they are the deciders. We don't need a madman masquerading as a poor parent telling the children to just give him one moree chance after screwing up for the umpteenth time. We could use that trillion for many other useful things that would actually help protect our democracy.

[Lefty]

As to point one. That is just absurd. Are you actually trying to say that the Iraq War is more dangerous than the original fight for independence in the Revolutionary War, or the divided nation of our own Civil War or either World War, or the risk posed from China's or the Soviet Union's intervention in the Korean War, or the decade long loss of 60,000 lives lost in Vietnam? Lefty, time for a reality check.

And on point two....why do you not beleive your President. I am surpsied. He's gone on record saying Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Has he now become a lib to you? Stop the 2002 platitudes and do some research.
When people are dedicated to killing everyone who does not convert to Islam it's absurd to take them lighly.
The Pres also said Saddam was helping the terrorists even though they might not have been directly in on the 9-11 plot. And he invaded them with the Dems blessing which they are trying very hard to deny but we have them on tape.

[lsbets]

Sec, perhaps a walk around the house or a few deep breaths before you press the Submit Reply button would do you some good, that way you could proofread before you post. I'm concerned about your mental state. You seem to have developed 46 syndrome.

[Tom]

Lefty,

The Revoultionary War was over in a shorter time than this one. We took on the premier power in the world, and beat them. In WW II we declared war against Germany AND Japan, two of the largest miltiary powers in the world, and it was over in 4 years. The Civil War was an act of treason against the Union with the firing on Fort Sumter and was over in four years.



In WWII, BOTH parties backed the efforts. We didn't have Quitocrats to act as speed bumps.

[Secretariat]

When people are dedicated to killing everyone who does not convert to Islam it's absurd to take them lighly.
The Pres also said Saddam was helping the terrorists even though they might not have been directly in on the 9-11 plot. And he invaded them with the Dems blessing which they are trying very hard to deny but we have them on tape.

Lefty,

They've been saying this since the Crusades. This is nothing new. We dealt with this stuff during the Cold War. Some Saudis stole some planes with boxcutters, not sophisticated weaponry. The fact they got away with it was due to negligence. Iraq had nothing to do with 911, not might have nothing to do with 911. (Get your GW quote correct) Please breathe and then say that.

You really need to go back and look at the Senate discussion during debate on the Iraq resolution, and you need to see what they advised the President to do. I would hardly call it giving him their blessing. I will say many of them trusted him, and were duped. It's no fun to be duped, and it's not a pretty sight to watch.

I am amazed because the Dems pretty much gave the Prez everything he wanted, and now they are realizing they did not do their due dilligence. This is one of the things that will keep Hillary from entering the WH.

[Secretariat]

In WWII, BOTH parties backed the efforts. We didn't have Quitocrats to act as speed bumps.

In WW II Japan invaded Pearl Harbor. Germany declared war on us thereafter. Iraq never invaded us, and did not declare war on us until we invaded them.

Look it up.

[Lefty]

sec, these guys are for real. To not realize that is to jeapordize our safety. Since 9-11, thanks to GW, we have stopped them from blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge and a large mall in OH. But yeah, you're right; no big deal.
Hannity played some clips today of the many positions Hillary has taken during this war. It all depended on which way the wind was blowing at the time. On one someone asked her if we could disarm Saddam without regime change and she said no.
Now she's shrilling another tune. Shameless. And she's not alone. Other dems have been guilty of the same thing.

[PaceAdvantage]

Oh man, you seem devoted to dumb posts. Why would anyone agree with that drivel? It's Not a War?

Drivel eh? Nope, just pure, unadulterated common sense observation. When is the last time the US led a bombing run in Iraq? When is the last time troops were involved in a firefight that lasted more than an hour?

The war is over. It ended the day we marched into Baghdad and found Hussein hiding in a hole (or wherever we found him). What you have now is a police state and/or mop-up operation.

Wise up. You're not as smart as you think you are.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Like Capone and other organized crime gangs vs Elliot Ness and the Feds, pehaps? Only a hell of a lot larger, and radically-religious empire orientated vs. high-volume-money-closed-market territorially orientated.

I'm rather glad I didn't live in the American Wild West, or frankly, 1920's-1930's Chicago. I'm sure others could add other places as well.

But those places eventually were settled down now and certainly livable, even though organized crime and street gangs still exist.

[betchatoo]

In WWII, BOTH parties backed the efforts. We didn't have Quitocrats to act as speed bumps.
In World War II the effort was worth backing

[Secretariat]

sec, these guys are for real. To not realize that is to jeapordize our safety. Since 9-11, thanks to GW, we have stopped them from blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge and a large mall in OH. But yeah, you're right; no big deal.
Hannity played some clips today of the many positions Hillary has taken during this war. It all depended on which way the wind was blowing at the time. On one someone asked her if we could disarm Saddam without regime change and she said no.
Now she's shrilling another tune. Shameless. And she's not alone. Other dems have been guilty of the same thing.

Lefty,

First off we are in total ageement about Hillary Clinton. She's a corporate centrist , not a liberal, and will not get my vote.

Lefty, since you fail to do research yourself, I've put a link for you to peruse.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2005/101005faketerror.htm


And as to failed policy which you questioned, here is what John McCain just said yesterday:

"McCain did not state flatly that he would oppose Casey's nomination to be Army chief of staff, replacing Gen. Peter Schoomaker. But he spoke harshly of Casey's record in Baghdad.

"I question seriously the judgment that was employed in your execution of your responsibilities in Iraq," he said. "And we have paid a very, very heavy price in American blood and treasure because of what is now agreed to by literally everyone as a failed policy."

[Secretariat]

The war is over. It ended the day we marched into Baghdad and found Hussein hiding in a hole (or wherever we found him). What you have now is a police state and/or mop-up operation.

Wise up. You're not as smart as you think you are.

Tell that to GW Bush, Cheney, McCain and John Warner. Glad you've finally come around to Kerry's way of thinking who also called it a police operation at this point.

[Lefty]

First of all sec, Hillary's Mentor was a stonecold socialist. She is a liberal posing as a centrist not other way around. You give me old news about the "subway" plot but what's that got to do with the real plots we've foiled. Pooh pooh our enemies all you want, but they're as real as Hitler and for a long while he wasn't taken seriously either.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Lefty
sec, these guys are for real. To not realize that is to jeapordize our safety. Since 9-11, thanks to GW, we have stopped them from blowing up the Brooklyn BridgeCorrect me if I'm wrong. That was the one where the existential mortal threat guys was gonna use some blow torches to dismantle the bridge?

Sounds worse than Stalin during the cold war. Good thing we got unca George W Churchill, to lead the forces of light on his never ending quest for truth, justice an the American way.

Psss..t com'here pal, keep it under your hat, but do I have a bridge to sell ya'
Psss..t, did ya hear da one about the other existential mortal threat guys, thats was gonna dress up as ninjas?. Nothing like a good old Kung FU episode.

[46zilzal]

First of all sec, Hillary's Mentor was a stonecold socialist. She is a liberal posing as a centrist not other way around. You give me old news about the "subway" plot but what's that got to do with the real plots we've foiled. Pooh pooh our enemies all you want, but they're as real as Hitler and for a long while he wasn't taken seriously either.
shoot the messenger...seems to work for you without EVER considering the content of the message!

[Secretariat]

Lefty,

Read the article I posted, not just the headline. If Hillary's a socialist then JR is too. She's a political opportunist that scores very low in polls with far left organizations because she is way too far to the right of the Democratic Party. Do the research. They prefer Dem's like Feingold. This illustrates you know nothing of the Democratic Party, but get your information from it via Rush.

[delayjf]

One, there is in fact no intelligence that Iran actually has a bomb or is close to one.
Interesting, so now you want to trust the intel. The same intel that was wrong about Iraq, and wrong about Korea (thank you Clinton / Carter) If this same intel now tells you that Iran is 1 year away from a bomb, would you trust that intel and act or wait and see. Do you deny that Iran is seeking to build a bomb? Do you agree that Iran having a bomb is a threat to the US? If you would not support a war in Iraq because they did not attack us or support terrorism - would you then support our invasion of Iran, because their support of terrorists that have targeted the US is well documented?

Well, I've put up an article previously which contradicts your Libya opinion,
I’ve read several article’s on Libya’s WMD program. All of them conclude our invasion into Iraq and the economic impact of UN sanctions prompted Libya’s admission. Yes Libya began secret negotiations in 1999, but they were only providing information about other terrorist organizations in an effort to get the sanctions lifted. I’ve read nothing stating that there was any admission on their part with regards to their WMD program. In fact, the IAEA has concluded that Libya had actually accelerated development of their WMD program from 00-03. On or about March 03 just prior to the Iraq invasion, they contacted the Brits WRT their WMD program. But it was not until after the shipment of centrifuge equipment was intercepted in Oct. of 03 that they finally came clean. IAEA inspectors were shocked as to how far their program had advanced, not to mention their stockpile of Chemical weapons.
This article chronicals the entire chain of events including interviews with diplomats involved with the secret negotiations.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008381

So let me get this right. You're saying that not only should the Predient have lied to the public, he should have "planted" phony WMDs on the ground!
I’m not saying he should have lied, that’s the Libs theory. I’m saying that if in fact the justification for the Iraq invasion was manufactured for the sole purpose of “grabbing some oil and getting rich” – as the Libs are now claiming. Then he would have also manufactured evidence to back up his justification. You don’t need to plant an actual bomb, just have some MOSAID agents bury some centrifuge equipment, yellowcake, stockpiles of nerve etc, in the desert. That would do the trick.

Then listen to the "majority of the people" who 2/1 are now clamoring for GW to get out of Iraq.
You don’t run a war by committee. I’d be interested in knowing what your ideas are, but if your referring to using the money to do a “left face, forward March” in Iraq – I like were your heads at. ;)

[hcap]

delayjfI’m saying that if in fact the justification for the Iraq invasion was manufactured for the sole purpose of “grabbing some oil and getting rich” – as the Libs are now claiming. Then he would have also manufactured evidence to back up his justification. You don’t need to plant an actual bomb, just have some MOSAID agents bury some centrifuge equipment, yellowcake, stockpiles of nerve etc, in the desert. That would do the trick.He would not have gotten away with it. The whole world was watching. Claiming the intel was wrong-the dog ate my homework defense-was safer. Hell, you guys are still using that one today. If there was one chance Kay or Duelfer or the UN found a hole in the planted weapons ploy, impeachment would be at hand.
Remember Powell talked about massive stockpiles. Planting a few lbs or even a ton of cheimicals, wouldn't have been any more convincing than those disavowed 16 words in the SOTU. And they were disavowed shortly after Joe Wilson told us what he didn't find in africa.

[JustRalph]

Amazing , once again. The very people who helped disassemble our intelligence services are screaming about bad intel? Cracks me up.

[hcap]

I never claimed the intel was wrong and bush was the victim of those dumb intel guys. That's yours and the bush brigades answer. There were enough caveats in the intel for a reasonably intelligent non-cowboy-ing, non yee-ha-ing, non-quick drawing prez to allow the UN to complete the job. They would have told us exactly what we know now. And we would be after bin laden with all the resources wasted in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Lefty
sec, these guys are for real. To not realize that is to jeapordize our safety. Since 9-11, thanks to GW, we have stopped them from blowing up the Brooklyn BridgeAll Fascism All the Time.
Bush talks up the nazis and communists and compares battles in Iraq to omaha beach and guadalcanal. He calls them all part of the same epic “ideological struggle of the 21st century.”

Lefty your existential threat. To scare the bejesus out of those who buy into dismantling the brooklyn bridge with blow torches. Ever use a blow torch? I have used a hydrogen oxygen torch. Big tanks on a wheeled cart. Burns hotter than acetylene. It would not take down a bridge by the time the whole NYPD had assembled along with every news station, newspaper and even Faux news to watch da terroristas progress.

Maybe the next chapter in the saga of good vs evil will be......The War of the Worlds.

Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a mainstay of Internet culture, an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. It is particularly concerned with logical fallacies such as reductio ad Hitlerum, wherein an idea is unduly dismissed or rejected on ground of it being associated with persons generally considered "evil". When bush can no longer discuss the war on the terms they have claimed to have fought it on, they have no arguments left, we have entered the world of "Godwin's Law."

All ad Hitleritum all the time. It figures bush is Churchill. Didn't ya know?

[Secretariat]

Interesting, so now you want to trust the intel.

Well, I would hope after the Iraq intel disaster and billions spent on Homeland Security and the fact that Bush has finally realized he needed to nominate the former Clinton National Security Director McConnel for the new National Intellgience Director perhaps we'll get some truth.

If this same intel now tells you that Iran is 1 year away from a bomb, would you trust that intel and act or wait and see.

As long as it is not coming out of the Pentagon I woudl trust it provided the Senate Intelligence Committee and Foreign Policy committee actually gets to look at it, AND all opposing intelligence viewpoints. We don't need Chalabi cooking the books anymore.


Do you deny that Iran is seeking to build a bomb?

Probably every nation and terrorist group on earth is seeking the bomb. The question is do they have it and are they an imminent threat to use it against the US.


Do you agree that Iran having a bomb is a threat to the US?

Not an imminent one. And we've no intel they have one. btw...if Cuba had a nuclear weapon they'd be a threat, so would Pakistan or China...wait they have nuclear weapons. so would Sudan...so would Venezuela. Heck, I'd be scared if Mexico had one.


If you would not support a war in Iraq because they did not attack us or support terrorism - would you then support our invasion of Iran, because their support of terrorists that have targeted the US is well documented?

No, because again Iran had nothing to do with 911. Here's a good quiz for you. Ironic that all the hijackers nationalties were from states that are allies of ours (although Lebanon is a mixed bag).

http://www.lies.com/wp/2003/09/14/a-quick-quiz-on-arabs-islam-911-racism-and-ignorance/

Can you name the "well documented" Iranian terrorism against the US in the last decade?

I’ve read several article’s on Libya’s WMD program. All of them conclude our invasion into Iraq and the economic impact of UN sanctions prompted Libya’s admission.

Well, their opinion differs from the article I posted. Go back and read it for another perspective.

I’m not saying he should have lied, that’s the Libs theory. I’m saying that if in fact the justification for the Iraq invasion was manufactured for the sole purpose of “grabbing some oil and getting rich” – as the Libs are now claiming. Then he would have also manufactured evidence to back up his justification. You don’t need to plant an actual bomb, just have some MOSAID agents bury some centrifuge equipment, yellowcake, stockpiles of nerve etc, in the desert. That would do the trick.


Wait a minute. Now, you're advocating that the US ask jewish Israeli agents to plant yellowcake, stockpiles of nerve in the middle of the desert in muslim Iraq? thank God, you're not part of the administration. GW's perfidy is unmatched by your suggestions I must say, but it doesn't remove the fact that he lied.


You don’t run a war by committee. I’d be interested in knowing what your ideas are, but if your referring to using the money to do a “left face, forward March” in Iraq – I like were your heads at. ;)

My suggestions are pretty basic. Bring in an international police force from all Muslim nations to patrol the streets of Baghdad with the Iraqi police leading the team, and pass it onto the UN for oversight. Remove our troops, (although I suggest sending some back to Afghainstan to actually re-pursue Bin Laden and the Taliban the real culprits behind 911.) Create some stability to the region by removing one of the causes of the unrest. Us.

[lsbets]

Can you name the "well documented" Iranian terrorism against the US in the last decade?


If you want to go back to 96, there is Khobar Towers. But you don't need to go back that far. Everyday Iran is training, funding, equipping, and sending operatives to work alongside with those who are attacking and killing our soldiers. You might not consider the killing of U.S. servicemen to be attacks against the U.S., but I sure as hell do. Whether you want to admit it or not, we have been at wat with Iran for a long time already.

[Lefty]

I get my info from what they say and it changes alla time. The only one in this whole mess that has not been an opportunist is the one you keep denigrating the most. GW who doesn't try to read the public's tea leaves. Arte you saying her mentor wasn't a socialist. And I did read your bullshit piece.

0zilly, you're the one that shhots messengers, which messenger did i shoot. I only shoot the ones with a false msg.

Yeah, let's stop investigating any news of terrorists here and all over the world. When a catastrophe happens let's see who cry's the most. Close call between hcap sec and zilly not to mention lbj.

[delayjf]

As long as it is not coming out of the Pentagon I woudl trust it provided the Senate Intelligence Committee and Foreign Policy committee actually gets to look at it,
They saw the same intel the President did. Hillary said she contacted people she trusted to confirm. George Tenet (a Clinton appointee) said it was a slam dunk.
The question is do they have it and are they an imminent threat to use it against the US.
You are not always going to know if you are in imminent danger - did we know on Sept 11?

Can you name the "well documented" Iranian terrorism against the US in the last decade? Their support of Hezbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad is well documented. Hezbullah was responsible for the Marine Barracks bombing in 83 that killed 241 American servicemen.

if Cuba had a nuclear weapon they'd be a threat, so would Pakistan or China.
The idea is to avoid a nuclear confrontation. Not wait until they develop the bomb then start lobbing big ones at each other.

Ironic that all the hijackers nationalties were from states that are allies of ours
Would you support attacking those countries? Using individual nationality as the criteria for US retaliation, we'd attack Saudi Arabia and leave Afghanistan alone. The terrorists nationality is irrelevant.

Wait a minute. Now, you're advocating that the US ask jewish Israeli agents to plant yellowcake
I'm not advocating anything, it's just one scenario by which Bush could have easily covered his ass. And yes, HCAP he could have gotten away with it. It would be a great opportunity for Israel to pull the US into a conflict in Iraq, just in time for them to have to deal with Iran's WMD program. It's not that far fetched. But it did not happen.

Well, their opinion differs from the article I posted
the author of the article you posted is in denial.

[Secretariat]

If you want to go back to 96, there is Khobar Towers. But you don't need to go back that far. Everyday Iran is training, funding, equipping, and sending operatives to work alongside with those who are attacking and killing our soldiers. You might not consider the killing of U.S. servicemen to be attacks against the U.S., but I sure as hell do. Whether you want to admit it or not, we have been at wat with Iran for a long time already.

I am No fan of I-ran! and we are not at war with them as far as any legal action by Congress or the Prez. I certainly hope that the arms deals Ollie North made with Iran to fund the Contras had nothing to do with helping fund any Iraniana terrorist activity, but then we're not at war with them.

But to your poitns, it still is questionable whether arms coming into Iraq from Iran were through private Iranian dealers, or through the legitimate government of Iran.

It goes to this issue as well. If Sunni terrorists used arms which came through Saudi Arabia, (and remember the Saudis have expressed reservations of the Shia treatment toward the Sunnis recently), then is Saudi Arabia responsible for the arms that came through Saudi arms dealers to the Sunnis?

You need to supply verifiable proof before attacking Iran and accusing the Iranian government of actually supplying arms to Iraqi pro-Shia insurgents. If there was the Bush administration would be all over it. In fact they're not even atempting to lie about it like they've done in the past. It would make aboslutely no sense for Iran to supply weapons to Sunni insurgents. They despise the Sunnis.

I appreciate that you did not attempt to equate Iranians with 911.

[Secretariat]

They saw the same intel the President did.

No, they didn't. Cheny was running his own itelligence operation out of the Pentagon, and Roberts was limting what was avaiable to his committee.

You are not always going to know if you are in imminent danger - did we know on Sept 11?

Yes, memo titled - Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US. GW went on a barbecue.


Their support of Hezbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad is well documented. Hezbullah was responsible for the Marine Barracks bombing in 83 that killed 241 American servicemen.

This was in the 80's when Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam's hand, and Ollie North was handing arms to terrorist Iran for money. btw..Hamas is Sunni not Shia. I encourage you to look up the difference ,and you'd understand why Hamas and Iran would not get along.


The idea is to avoid a nuclear confrontation. Not wait until they develop the bomb then start lobbing big ones at each other.


I agree. This is why we should be having a major international diplomacy effort with all nations rather than more saber rattling.



Would you support attacking those countries? Using individual nationality as the criteria for US retaliation, we'd attack Saudi Arabia and leave Afghanistan alone. The terrorists nationality is irrelevant.

A terrorist's nationaltiy is not irrelevant - and if an Iranian had been on that plane you'd be using that.. It does indicate quite a lot about radicalism within that country. I would not be in favor of attacking those countries however, just as I would not be in favor of attacking Iran based on "maybes" especially in lieu of no evidence of an Iranian terrorist attack on the US. We've already made that mess in Iraq based on "maybes".





I'm not advocating anything, it's just one scenario by which Bush could have easily covered his ass.

Even I don't think he's that stupid.


the author of the article you posted is in denial.

Look in the mirror. You may be the one in denial. Bob Woodward may have a book for you to read. State of Denial

[Secretariat]

I get my info from what they say and it changes alla time.

I understand your frustration Lefty. GW and Rush change what they say alla time.

[lsbets]

Let's strip out the pointless rambling, and address the few points that I think I understand you are trying to make:

I am No fan of I-ran! and we are not at war with them as far as any legal action by Congress or the Prez.

You are correct, we are not at war with Iran through the actions of any US Pres or Congress. Since Carter, every US President has been woefully negligent in dealing with Iran. Wishing they would stop hasn't worked. But, we are at war with them through their actions. Congress' and the President's failure to recognize that does not change the fact that Iran has been active in the business of killing Americans since 1979. I'm not surprised that doesn't seem to bother you. I also would not be surprised if you found some way to blame Iranian backed terrorism against the US on either Bush, Israel, or both. That seems to be your pattern.

But to your poitns, it still is questionable whether arms coming into Iraq from Iran were through private Iranian dealers, or through the legitimate government of Iran.

There is actually no question at all that arms and operatives coming into Iraq are coming from the government of Iran. That's about all I'll say on that subject, because you don't have the clearance for more information. :lol: :lol:

If Sunni terrorists used arms which came through Saudi Arabia, (and remember the Saudis have expressed reservations of the Shia treatment toward the Sunnis recently), then is Saudi Arabia responsible for the arms that came through Saudi arms dealers to the Sunnis?

If the Saudi government were sending arms to insurgents attacking U.S. forces, than I would say the same thing about Saudi Arabia that I am saying about Iran (let me count the ways that I anticipate you failing to understand what I just said.)

You need to supply verifiable proof before attacking Iran and accusing the Iranian government of actually supplying arms to Iraqi pro-Shia insurgents.

I don't need to supply anything, like I said, you don't have the clearance for that information. :lol: :lol:

It would make aboslutely no sense for Iran to supply weapons to Sunni insurgents. They despise the Sunnis.

Who in the hell said anything about them supplying anything to Sunnis? I'm not sure who makes less sense when they post - you or skate. At least its pretty obvious that skate is putting on an act.

[Tom]

Sec never saw a war he didn't want to lose.

Look, Iran is helping the insurgents in Iraq - more than enough reason to lob a few their way.

[Secretariat]

You are correct, we are not at war with Iran through the actions of any US Pres or Congress.

Thank you for that admission.

There is actually no question at all that arms and operatives coming into Iraq are coming from the government of Iran.

Apparently, despite your inside sources there is sincere disagreement about just that. See link below:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/take-your-quarrels-elsewhere-bush-told/2007/02/01/1169919474255.html

Take your quarrels elsewhere, Bush told
Bob Deans in Washington
February 2, 2007

THE Iraqi Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, has told the United States and Iran to take their quarrels elsewhere, saying he will not permit his country to be caught in the crossfire.

"Solve your problems outside of Iraq. We do not want the American forces to take Iraq as a field to attack Iran or Syria, and we will not accept Iran to use Iraq to attack the American forces," Mr Maliki told CNN.

…, the Bush Administration has postponed plans to publish a "dossier" of Iranian interference in Iraq, with some officials divided over the strength of the US evidence.

...

Since the rest of your post pretty much is ridicule based on intelligence the Bush administration doesn't feel comfortable enough based on the "strength of US evidence" and you obviously have the clearance which some Bush officials do not have, I'll have to wait until they have the guts to publish the dossier.

Interesting quote by Maliki on how we're serving his country.

[delayjf]

No, they didn't. Cheny was running his own itelligence operation out of the Pentagon, and Roberts was limting what was avaiable to his committee.
That is BS and you know it, they were briefed by the CIA as well as the Pentagon.
Yes, memo titled - Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US. GW went on a barbecue.
Did it mention the date, time and place? And I suppose Clinton was well prepared for 9/11. Never would have happened on his watch.

Hamas is Sunni not Shia. I encourage you to look up the difference ,and you'd understand why Hamas and Iran would not get along.
Apparently the State Dept disagrees. I got this from Wikipedia. Nothing right winged about them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

This was in the 80's when Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam's hand, and Ollie North
Glad you got over it but for me the statue of limitations has not expired. Who cares who shook who's hand. FDR shook Stalins, Nixon shook Mao Se Tung's, Clinton with drug dealers, again illrelevant.

I agree. This is why we should be having a major international diplomacy effort with all nations rather than more saber rattling.
I wish, but the UN is worthless in fact they were on the take.

A terrorist's nationaltiy is not irrelevant
So why aren't you advocating an attack of SA. If I could prove Iran was supporting Al Quida yes I would attack them and If they do not dis-arm, I would back Israel's attack on Iran.

Even I don't think he's that stupid.
But you do think he's stupid enough to lie about intel and attack for the pure hell of it, no I'm sorry it's so he can get rich on the oil, like his father. Is there any proof of this Vast fortune the Bushes have got socked away?

[Tom]

Sec, we have not only caught Iranian guard in Iraq, we have found and traced weapons back to Iran. They are interfering - it is a fact.

[Secretariat]

Sec never saw a war he didn't want to lose.

Look, Iran is helping the insurgents in Iraq - more than enough reason to lob a few their way.

I been to one Tom. Have you?

Where is your proof of the Iran government helping insurgents in Iraq? And which insurgents?

[lsbets]

Since the rest of your post pretty much is ridicule based on intelligence the Bush administration doesn't feel comfortable enough based on the "strength of US evidence"

Actually most of my post was ridicule based on your willingness to side with Iran as they kill Americans because Iran doesn't like Bush.

[Secretariat]

That is BS and you know it, they were briefed by the CIA as well as the Pentagon.

No it isn't. Contact Levin's office and ask him.

Did it mention the date, time and place? And I suppose Clinton was well prepared for 9/11. Never would have happened on his watch.

Did Saddan announce the date, time and place for an American attack? Can't have it both ways DJ? Al Queda was the threat my man, not Saddam. We already knew about the millenium plot, the first WTC, the Cole, and Clarke's and John O'Neills' warnings. And what did GW do - go to a cookout.


Apparently the State Dept disagrees. I got this from Wikipedia. Nothing right winged about them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

I read the State Dpartment blurb on Hamas and saw funding in Saudi Arabia, North America and operations from Syria, not Iran.

"HAMAS receives funding from Palestinian expatriates, Iran, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other moderate Arab states. Some fundraising and propaganda activities take place in Western Europe and North America. As of 2003 US intelligence sources estimated that the militant Palestinian group Hamas had an annual budget of 50 million dollars, raising much of that money through its reputation as a charity. Despite its notoriety worldwide as a terrorist group, many Palestinians see Hamas as a charitable organization that builds schools and hospitals and steps in where the Palestinian Authority has failed.

The Hamas organization is also operating in European countries and the United States, mainly among the Palestinian population, by conducting fundraising (through charity associations and foundations - Dawa activity). Some of the funds received are channeled to finance terrorist activity in Israel, and other monies are intended for the funding of Hamas civilian activity. The United States is seeking to bankrupt Hamas by undermining its reputation as a charity.

Syria serves as an important base of the Hamas organization..., from a political, information and operational perspective. Officials in the Hamas leadership reside in Syria and conduct their operations from there.

The Syrian Government enables the Hamas leadership and its terrorist commanders to conduct their various activities on its soil, including the formulation of the Hamas operational strategy, the training of terrorist operatives, the funding of terrorist activity against Israel and assistance in the purchase of arms and ammunition.

Why not Syria? Why Iran? Why not the "moderate" Arab states? Too inconsistent.

Glad you got over it but for me the statue of limitations has not expired. Who cares who shook who's hand. FDR shook Stalins, Nixon shook Mao Se Tung's, Clinton with drug dealers, again illrelevant.

A little bit more than shaking hands DJ....you know that. how do you think Saddam waged his war against Iran? Wake up.


I wish, but the UN is worthless in fact they were on the take.

So is Bush and Cheney. Ask Halliburton.


So why aren't you advocating an attack of SA.

Because I beleive in the power of diplomacy as do people such as Wes Clark.

But you do think he's stupid enough to lie about intel and attack for the pure hell of it, no I'm sorry it's so he can get rich on the oil, like his father. Is there any proof of this Vast fortune the Bushes have got socked away?

They're doing very well as are the Cheneys.

[Secretariat]

Actually most of my post was ridicule based on your willingness to side with Iran as they kill Americans because Iran doesn't like Bush.

Why do you mis-state? I don't side with Iran. I just want some damn proof before we decide to invade another country. We've already screwed up one country based on lies and misinformation.

If the Bush administration can't even bring the information forward for scrutiny and for review before the Seante and House and American people, then it is not evidence, but rhetoric.

[lsbets]

Why do you mis-state? I don't side with Iran. I just want some damn proof before we decide to invade another country. We've already screwed up one country based on lies and misinformation.

If the Bush administration can't even bring the information forward for scrutiny and for review before the Seante and House and American people, then it is not evidence, but rhetoric.

Beirut, doesn't seem to bother you, Khobar Towers, doesn't seem to bother you. How many dead Americans before it bothers you?

[Secretariat]

Beirut, doesn't seem to bother you, Khobar Towers, doesn't seem to bother you. How many dead Americans before it bothers you?

All American deaths bother me. That's why I want them out of Iraq as Maliki does.

Frankly, after the US Inspector General for Reconstruction's report I'm more worried about how were' supplying arms to the insurgency.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo120.html

“…report by the U.S. Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction, Stuart W. Brown, detailing the squandering of at least $21 billion so far. "The government of Iraq has been unable to boost the production of oil or electricity despite U.S. aid," Mr. Wood reports. Even in Baghdad, the electricity is on only 6.5 hours a day "because of political squabbles about which power plants in regions outside of Baghdad should share electricity with the capital."

An earlier report by Bowen’s office concluded that under former Viceroy Paul Bremmer’s rule more than $8 billion simply disappeared and is unaccounted for. The U.S. government is also unable to account for 90,000 rifles and 80,000 pistols that were supposed to arm the Iraqi police forces three years ago. Another $36.4 million that was allotted for body armor and weapons "cannot be accounted for." A billion dollars earmarked for a refinery repair program was stolen and ended up in the hands of the "insurgency." Iraq’s oil refineries are still "dilapidated" and suffering from "crippling problems" despite several billion U.S. tax dollars being earmarked to repair them. And this is just what our government bureaucrats admit to."

[Lefty]

GW, has been the most consistent one. He said at the outset that the war against terrorism was going to long and hard. It's the Hillaries that keep changing their tune. She was for the war when it was popular, now that it's not she isn't. How convenient. The Pres wants to win and the libs don't. They think you can talk to madmen. Hitler was discounted for too long and now some of you trying to do the same thing with the enemies we face now. Don't listen to Rush as he comes on when I have to leave in the morn but i do watch Hannity and Colmes. Those two guys have been most consistent. One for, one against. O'Reilly has changed his position but knows we can't leave Iraq prematurely or it will bve a disaster.
If the dems are so incompetent to "buy" and fund a war they don't blve in i certainly don't want them running foreign policy. The truth is, they waver with the polls. That's not leadership.

[Light]

Insurgents? Sounds like a lower form of terrorist.If we are invaded by a foreign country,will our defense be called an insurgency? Do you know the nationality of those who are fighting Americans? 95% Iraqi.If they dont have a right to their own destiny,then neither do we.

The U.S. is fueling the carnage by taking sides in a power struggle due to the vacuum created by deposing Saddam.

What the U.S. doesn't understand is you cannot use imperialism anymore to conquer other countries. The underdogs have come of age. You cannot win a guerrilla war with a conventional army. It happened in Vietnam,and it just happened in Lebanon. The most powerful armies forced to quit. There is also the psychological factor of dying for your country as a defender and dying as an invader. The home field advantage is with Iraqi's. American GI's have had the reason for why they are there changed so many times,its become immaterial. Unfortunately Bush has to go on selling the war for the next 2 years rather than face humiliation. He is the ultimate coward.

[46zilzal]

Unfortunately Bush has to go on selling the war for the next 2 years rather than face humiliation. He is the ultimate coward.
delusional, out of touch one as well

[JustRalph]

He is the ultimate coward.

Mighty big words from a terrorist sympathizer who won't even reveal what state he is in?

[lsbets]

Mighty big words from a terrorist sympathizer who won't even reveal what state he is in?

Careful Ralph, he'll sue, just don't mention his penchant for lifting quotes from extremist hate sites. :lol: :lol:

[46zilzal]

but there is NO civil war, just Iraq on Iraq violence...funny as if changing the name of what IS, will somehow make is different.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/02/iraq.nie/index.html

[Light]

Mighty big words from a terrorist sympathizer who won't even reveal what state he is in?


Go ask Buddha. I sent him my address when I won the book in the Pk4 contest on 12/3/06 but have yet to recieve it. BTW I'm in Ca. Come and get me.

[46zilzal]

Go ask Buddha. I sent him my address when I won the book in the Pk4 contest on 12/3/06 but have yet to recieve it. BTW I'm in Ca. Come and get me.
that would be an interesting confrontation.

[lsbets]

that would be an interesting confrontation.

Wonder if Light would strap on an explosive vest. :lol: :lol:

[delayjf]

No it isn't. Contact Levin's office and ask him.

Carl levin was quoted on Hardball
"There was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that." (11/08/05)

Here is another quote from Levin on CNN.
"The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as he [Saddam Hussein] is in power." (12/16/01)

Did Saddan announce the date, time and place for an American attack? Can't have it both ways DJ? Al Queda was the threat my man, not Saddam. We already knew about the millenium plot, the first WTC, the Cole, and Clarke's and John O'Neills' warnings. And what did GW do - go to a cookout.

I'm not trying to have it both ways. You are the one that is insinuating that President Bush had specific advanced knowledge of 9/11. Given all the events you list above (during Clinton's watch by the way), I think it is obvious that AQ wanted to strike at the American Homeland. Claiming President Bush had advanced knowledge of the 9/11 attacks is akin to warning Florida in January that there will Hurricanes this coming fall.
Here's an article that outlines Iraq's support of Terrorist's organizations.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/710goolj.asp?pg=1

A little bit more than shaking hands DJ....you know that. how do you think Saddam waged his war against Iran? Wake up.
Yes, I admit the US suppled Iraq with duel purpose equipment that Saddam used to manufactor Chem weapons. But that equipment was not hard to come by. Libya had the same equipment and did the same thing. Once we learned what he was doing with the stuff, the US halted shipment of chem weapon precursors, in fact most of the supplies he needed to produce the Chem weapon was not supplied by the US. His army was strickly communist issue. In the 1980's the US was at odds with Iran, the decision was made that an Iranian victory would be detrimental to the US, so we took sides. The World (including the US) was remiss in its reaction to Saddam's use of Chem weapons which further embolded Saddam into attacking Kuwait.

HAMAS receives funding from Palestinian expatriates, Iran,
You claimed Iran would never have anything to do with Hama. Now your admitting it, were making progress :jump:

So is Bush and Cheney. Ask Halliburton.
Was that you or 46 who is was claiming that Cheney's deferred payments from his liquidation of Halliburton stock (from 2001), as required by law ,was proof that he was still on the take? You'll have to do better than that.

Because I beleive in the power of diplomacy as do people such as Wes Clark.
So do I, but 10 + years of sanctions were not working, the UN was on the take. You can negotiate with reasonable men, not mad sadistic killers like AG or Saddam. 9/11 changed the world, should the US now negotiate with OBL?

They're doing very well as are the Cheneys.
Unsubstantiated speculation.

[46zilzal]

"Keep 'em scared and make them think WE will protect them."

what crap

[hcap]

The neocons have learned nothing from five years of catastrophe
Their zealous advocacy of the invasion of Iraq may have been a disaster, but now they want to do it all over again - in Iran

Francis Fukuyama
Wednesday January 31, 2007
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2002290,00.html

"The United States today spends approximately as much as the rest of the world combined on its military establishment. So it is worth pondering why it is that, after nearly four years of effort, the loss of thousands of American lives, and an outlay of perhaps half-a-trillion dollars, the US has not succeeded in pacifying a small country of some 24 million people, much less in leading it to anything that looks remotely like a successful democracy."

Fukuyama is an ex neocon More....

"American military doctrine has emphasised the use of overwhelming force, applied suddenly and decisively, to defeat the enemy. But in a world where insurgents and militias deploy invisibly among civilian populations, overwhelming force is almost always counterproductive: it alienates precisely those people who have to make a break with the hardcore fighters and deny them the ability to operate freely. The kind of counterinsurgency campaign needed to defeat transnational militias and terrorists puts political goals ahead of military ones, and emphasises hearts and minds over shock and awe.

A second lesson that should have been drawn from the past five years is that preventive war cannot be the basis of a long-term US nonproliferation strategy. The Bush doctrine sought to use preventive war against Iraq as a means of raising the perceived cost to would-be proliferators of approaching the nuclear threshold. Unfortunately, the cost to the US itself was so high that it taught exactly the opposite lesson: the deterrent effect of American conventional power is low, and the likelihood of preventive war actually decreases if a country manages to cross that threshold."


Zbigniew Brzezinski.....

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser in the Carter administration, delivered a scathing critique of the war in Iraq and warned that the Bush administration’s policy was leading inevitably to a war with Iran, with incalculable consequences for US imperialism in the Middle East and internationally.

Brzezinski, who opposed the March 2003 invasion and has publicly denounced the war as a colossal foreign policy blunder, began his remarks on what he called the “war of choice” in Iraq by characterizing it as “a historic, strategic and moral calamity.”

“Undertaken under false assumptions,” he continued, “it is undermining America’s global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America’s moral credentials. Driven by Manichean principles and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.”

Brzezinski derided Bush’s talk of a “decisive ideological struggle” against radical Islam as “simplistic and demagogic,” and called it a “mythical historical narrative” employed to justify a “protracted and potentially expanding war.”

[JustRalph]

BTW I'm in Ca. Come and get me.

makes perfect sense. California.

[lsbets]

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser in the Carter administration,

:lol: :lol: :lol: Carter's Natinal Security Advisor - there's an expert on how to deal with Iran! Maybe if he had been able to deal with them effectively when they took over our embassy and held our citizens hostage we wouldn't have all these problems with Iran today.

[hcap]

Yeah like the time Reagen and crew traded with the Iranians to support the Contras. Wheres ole Ollie when you need him. Oh yeah speaking da truth on Faux.

"several members of the Reagan Administration who in 1986 helped sell arms to Iran, an avowed enemy, and used the proceeds to fund the Contras, an anti-communist guerrilla organization in Nicaragua."

Now lets see...

"After the arms sales were revealed in November 1986, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and denied that they had occurred. However, a week later, on November 13, he returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran. He denied that they were part of an exchange for hostages. However, a week later, on November 13, he returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran. He denied that they were part of an exchange for hostages"

Now since many many neocon planners are.....
a) now members of the bush administration and
b) curiously, a majority of those were in involved in Iran Contra,
c) Zbigniew Brzezinski.....has got at least MORE, if not MUCH more creditability. :lol: :lol:

OH yeah like maybe if the neocons had gotten their foreign policy outa their ass, maybe as you say.."we wouldn't have all these problems with Iran today". Iraq as conducted by bush and his brigade of blunderers. A gigantic foreign failure made worse by attempting to use it as a viable example of what we should now do with Iran.

Fukuyama gets it. I guess some eventually wake. But maybe not here in Stepford off-topicville

[Secretariat]

Carl levin was quoted on Hardball
"There was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that." (11/08/05)

Here is another quote from Levin on CNN.
"The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as he [Saddam Hussein] is in power." (12/16/01)

He's making those quotes based on what he was shown, not what was hid from him. See his comments below, and read the links.

http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroom/release.cfm?id=248339

“This newly declassified information provides additional, dramatic evidence that the Administration’s pre-war statements were deceptive,” Levin said. “The underlying DIA intelligence simply did not support the Administration’s repeated assertions that Iraq had provided chemical and biological weapons training to al-Qaeda. More than a year before Secretary Powell included that charge in his presentation to the United Nations, the DIA had said it believed the detainee’s claims were bogus. The Administration’s use of this intelligence was disingenuous and misleading.”

The CIA also had reservations about the source. The CIA’s unclassified statement at the time was that the reporting was “credible,” a statement the Administration used repeatedly. However, what was selectively omitted was the CIA’s view at the time that the source was not in a position to know whether any training had taken place.

http://www.nysun.com/article/44054

http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroom/release.cfm?id=262690

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/levin071503.html

"I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council. How do you think that makes me feel? Thirty-one years in the United States Army and I more or less end my career with that kind of a blot on my record? That's not a very comforting thing. " - LAWRENCE WILKERSON, Colin Powell's number one man

That's why theny need to have investigations now, because so much was withheld from them. The administration is scared and they should be.


I'm not trying to have it both ways. You are the one that is insinuating that President Bush had specific advanced knowledge of 9/11.

http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/911bush.html

It isn't just the memo Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US. Look at the link I put and the number of warnings. Heres' a few excerpts:

"An FBI supervisor, sounding a prophetic pre-Sept. 11 alarm, warned FBI headquarters that student pilot Zacarias Moussaoui was so dangerous he might 'take control of a plane and fly it into the World Trade Center,' a congressional investigator said in a report Tuesday."

“One such CIA briefing, in July 2001, was particularly chilling and prophetic. It predicted that Osama bin Laden was about to launch a terrorist strike 'in the coming weeks,' the congressional investigators found. The intelligence briefing went on to say: 'The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.'"

"U.S. intelligence agencies received many more indications than previously disclosed that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network was planning imminent "spectacular" attacks in the summer of 2001 aimed at inflicting mass casualties."

Now, let me ask you something delay....if you were PRez with these warnings, would you in all honesty...head to Crawford for a month long barbecue...approve NORAD to go on stand by with no defenses over our major cities such as NYC and Washington DC. Think carefully before you answer.


Yes, I admit the US suppled Iraq with duel purpose equipment that Saddam used to manufactor Chem weapons. But that equipment was not hard to come by. Libya had the same equipment and did the same thing. Once we learned what he was doing with the stuff, the US halted shipment of chem weapon precursors, in fact most of the supplies he needed to produce the Chem weapon was not supplied by the US. His army was strickly communist issue. In the 1980's the US was at odds with Iran, the decision was made that an Iranian victory would be detrimental to the US, so we took sides. The World (including the US) was remiss in its reaction to Saddam's use of Chem weapons which further embolded Saddam into attacking Kuwait.


So much here. Here's a bit:

"Beginning in September 1989, the Financial Times laid out the first charges that BNL, relying heavily on U.S. government-guaranteed loans, was funding Iraqi chemical and nuclear weapons work. For the next two and a half years, the Financial Times provided the only continuous newspaper reportage (over 300 articles) on the subject. Among the companies shipping militarily useful technology to Iraq under the eye of the U.S. government, according to the Financial Times, were Hewlett-Packard, Tektronix, and Matrix Churchill, through its Ohio branch."

"On 21 March 1986, the United Nations Security Council made a declaration stating that "members are profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops and the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons." The United States was the only member who voted against the issuance of this statement.

According to retired Colonel Walter Lang, senior defense intelligence officer for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency at the time, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose." He claimed that the Defense Intelligence Agency "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival",[51] however, despite this allegation, Reagan’s administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians.

While at the same time supplying hemical components to Iraq, Ollie is involved in Iran-Contra supplying the enemy, Iran, of our erstwhile ally, Iraq with weapons via Israel. What a disaster this was. But WHY would we veto the UN resolution against the use of chemical weapons in the Reagan years?




You claimed Iran would never have anything to do with Hama. Now your admitting it, were making progress :jump:

Religoiusly no, but according to the State Department in this administration they are contributing due to their united hatred of Israel The State Department does not list how this information on support was obtained, but it also stars that Hamas gets money from the Saudis, and other Arab moderate? states as well as North American charities. Let's hope one of those moderate Arab states wasn't Dubai since GW wanted them to handle our port security.




Was that you or 46 who is was claiming that Cheney's deferred payments from his liquidation of Halliburton stock (from 2001), as required by law ,was proof that he was still on the take? You'll have to do better than that.

Must have been 46 as I don't remember this. However, Dick Cheney is probably the msot corrupt man ever to serve as VP.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8498

"The record shows that over the last decade, Cheney was willing first to do business with countries on the U.S. government’s terror list, then to travel abroad and condemn U.S. counter-terrorism policy when it got in his way. In the process, Cheney proved repeatedly he could be trusted to put Halliburton’s bottom line ahead of his country’s national security.

As Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush, Cheney helped lead a multinational coalition against Iraq and was one of the architects of a post-war economic embargo designed to choke off funds to the country. He insisted the world should “maintain sanctions, at least of some kind,” so Saddam Hussein could not “rebuild the military force he’s used against his neighbors.”

But less than six years later, as a private businessman, Cheney apparently had more important interests than preventing Hussein from rebuilding his army. While he claimed during the 2000 campaign that, as CEO of Halliburton, he had “imposed a ‘firm policy’ against trading with Iraq,” confidential UN records show that, from the first half of 1997 to the summer of 2000, Halliburton held stakes in two firms that sold more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was in charge. Halliburton acquired its interest in both firms while Cheney was at the helm, and continued doing business through them until just months before Cheney was named George W. Bush’s running mate. "



So do I, but 10 + years of sanctions were not working, the UN was on the take. You can negotiate with reasonable men, not mad sadistic killers like AG or Saddam. 9/11 changed the world, should the US now negotiate with OBL?

See, that's exactly your problem. The sanctions were working (for the most part, except for the above Cheney example) and did work. They had no WMD program.


Unsubstantiated speculation.

There is so much on the greed of Cheney and the Bush wealth. I'll let the above quotes on cheny speak for themselves. My God, even tax accountants shake their head at Cheney:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2006/04/kirsch_cheney_t.html

[skate]

hey, is that the same Cheney that made $800 million in 2005 and donated


$600 million to charity?


the same one?

hum, i didnt get to read the whole post

[hcap]

Zbigniew Brzezinski

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/post/index/748/Brzezinskis-showstopper

Your hearings come at a critical juncture in the U.S. war of choice in Iraq, and I commend you and Senator Lugar for scheduling them.

It is time for the White House to come to terms with two central realities:

1. The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America's global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America's moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.

2. Only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed framework for a tolerable resolution of both the war in Iraq and the intensifying regional tensions.

[46zilzal]

rutabaga wants $245 BILLION for his folly. Disgusting.

[Secretariat]

hum, i didnt get to read the whole post

You need to read the whole post (and the taxprof link) before intelligently posting.

I see finally the new NIE is recognizing it is a civil war.

[delayjf]

Sec,

He's making those quotes based on what he was shown, not what was hid from him
The 11/08/05 quote I posted was two days AFTER the memo that you posted. Levins just another politician trying to cover his ass.

According to Iraqi documents released in 2002, there were several nations that contributed over 17,600 tons of chemicals used for weapons. Of that only 300-600 tons came from the US. In 1989, a US company was caught can fined for delivering chem. Precursors to Iran and Iraq. Germany was by far one of the biggest contributors to Iraq’s chem program. Again, I don’t deny we turned a blind eye to the use of chem weapons against Iran, but so did the rest of the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#Chemical_weapons

BNL is an international bank owned by the Italian Government that gave Iraq credit to purchase US agricultural equipment through its Atlanta GA office. It was illegal and the feds raided the bank in 1989 and indicted 12 people who were behind the loans.


I don't have time to continue, see ya next week. Have a good one. If your going to the track good luck.

[Secretariat]

Sec,


The 11/08/05 quote I posted was two days AFTER the memo that you posted. Levins just another politician trying to cover his ass.

The issue is not whether Saddam "may have had WMD's", the issue is whether the intelligence was manipulated by the Bush administration to omit information that the rest of the Congress was seeing. Levins is saying clearly that it was, and we'll be seeing more of this as the hearings continue and more information is declassified.

As to the Iraq chemical weapon issue, I encourage to re-ead my post above and answer why the US was the only country in the world that did not condemn Iraqis use of chemical weapons at hte UN.


Sec,
I don't have time to continue, see ya next week. Have a good one. If your going to the track good luck.

You too. I doubt we'll ever agree on "Bush Doctrine". I think their policy is incredilby dangerous to our society. You think it is imperative to its security.

[Secretariat]

rutabaga wants $245 BILLION for his folly. Disgusting.

46,

I don't know if you or Hcap has ever read this, or how true it is. If so, what's 245 billion in the larger scheme of things?

http://www.clamormagazine.org/issues/14/feature3.php

[skate]

You need to read the whole post (and the taxprof link) before intelligently posting.

I see finally the new NIE is recognizing it is a civil war.


regards to taxprof link.
the taxprof admits that he does not know, and he goes on to assume that the tax law was made, in order to give cheney a tax brake. what kind of intelligence is that?.

gees , i guess we can figure, that my charities given, in turn reduce my tax bill and that tax law was made exclusive to 'the-skate'.

i find it difficult to ignore what happened to cheneys money.
he made $800 million
he gave $600 million away

all the intelligence, along with the truth, says Cheney:ThmbUp:

good god, you expect someone to read all that blog stuff?
the poor guy(taxprof) is on a merry -go-round. sorry babe.

go back and read...

[PaceAdvantage]

rutabaga wants $245 BILLION for his folly. Disgusting.

So stop him. Or is the opposition that impotent?

[skate]

You need to read the whole post (and the taxprof link) before intelligently posting.

I see finally the new NIE is recognizing it is a civil war.

ya know, it isnt that i care to due a put-down, but did you read what your blogger said?

he says things that make the whole post un-intelligent.
his Quote " i don't know anything about the transaction beyond the info in the press release, but my gut reaction:lol: (not even his feeling)is that the personal check was given in order to make sure the independent administrator had sufficient liquid assets to pay all of the promised charitable (CHaritable, my word, just so we do not miss it) contributions before the 50% limit returned on 1/1/06".

oh, he goes on. but im not sure i want to bother, NOT to bother was my first Reaction.

again your man says;
"despite the importance of the Katrina legislationto his tax return, it LOOKS:liar: like none of the charitable contributions actually went to "K"- related ". gees-oh-man...
the press release goes on to mention the 3 charitable RECIPIENTS (and thats all i need).


last point from your bloggers.
He says "While there's nothing inappropriate about that from a legal perspective...:""

How much intelligence does one need to comprehend "Nothing Inappropriate". :bang:

would you like some advice?

i do not care what charity...


your blogger is a very good speller, otherwise i would figure him to be the sender of all those emails that gives "WARNING" your account will be closed unless you contact us at the following url... type notice.

so, be carefully;)

[Secretariat]

ya know, it isnt that i care to due a put-down, but did you read what your blogger said?

he says things that make the whole post un-intelligent.
his Quote " i don't know anything about the transaction beyond the info in the press release, but my gut reaction:lol: (not even his feeling)is that the personal check was given in order to make sure the independent administrator had sufficient liquid assets to pay all of the promised charitable (CHaritable, my word, just so we do not miss it) contributions before the 50% limit returned on 1/1/06".

oh, he goes on. but im not sure i want to bother, NOT to bother was my first Reaction.

again your man says;
"despite the importance of the Katrina legislationto his tax return, it LOOKS:liar: like none of the charitable contributions actually went to "K"- related ". gees-oh-man...
the press release goes on to mention the 3 charitable RECIPIENTS (and thats all i need).


last point from your bloggers.
He says "While there's nothing inappropriate about that from a legal perspective...:""

How much intelligence does one need to comprehend "Nothing Inappropriate". :bang:

would you like some advice?

i do not care what charity...


your blogger is a very good speller, otherwise i would figure him to be the sender of all those emails that gives "WARNING" your account will be closed unless you contact us at the following url... type notice.

so, be carefully;)

Yeah, the blogger I posted is a guy who knows nothing about taxes. Here's his bio:

http://law.nd.edu/faculty/facultypages/kirsch.html

My original post was a small part of a response to Delay about Bush and Cheney greed. When you have a tax exemption based on Hurrican Katrina benefits, and then take Hallibritn profits and apply them to non-katrina charities to benefit yourself on your personal tax retrun it is unethical is what the man is saying.

"A Notre Dame professor has analyzed Dick Cheney's 2005 tax return and concluded that our fair Vice President exploited a new tax law instituted post-Katrina to save himself several million dollars. It turns out that Smirky Dick used a loophole intended to encourage charitable donations for Katrina relief to write off charitable contribution which went to non-Katrina causes. That alone might not be enough to get irked about, except that it looks like the exploitation of the loophole was deliberate to minimize his overall liability, and he used Halliburton money to do it.

Cheney exercised some of his Halliburton options in late 2005, during which time that company's profits were soaring in part because of fat no-bid reconstruction contracts granted to its subsidiary KBR in the wake of Katrina. Cheney used those proceeds -- $6.8 million -- to donate to charities per his 2001 agreement to use his options only for charity.

Says the prof: "While there's nothing inappropriate about that from a legal perspective, it does demonstrate how the legislation, which was sold to the public as providing relief to Katrina victims, provided significant tax benefits to the VP (and potentially other wealthy individuals) in situations that have nothing to do with Hurricane Katrina ."

Not illegal but definitely soulless, cynical, opportunist, and greedty. So, no big surprise."

...

It's deceptive and I only posted it as one example of Cheney's greed. THere is a LOT worse.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8498

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,765834,00.html

To me the man borders on being a self-serving traitor.

[Tom]

makes perfect sense. California.

He is really Ah-nold! :D

[Tom]

100 bill this year, 145 bill next year.
Fisrt thing comes to mind is why a 45% increas after a full year af the surge?

Nope - enough is enough.
Give him 50 tis year and nop more.
If he can't get it under control in 6 months, we have the worng people running things. It is time to start demanding results - measurabel results. Part of losing Iraq not being an option is recognizing when we need a regime change of our own.
This bush is going in circles.

[skate]

Yeah, the blogger I posted is a guy who knows nothing about taxes. Here's his bio:

http://law.nd.edu/faculty/facultypages/kirsch.html

My original post was a small part of a response to Delay about Bush and Cheney greed. When you have a tax exemption based on Hurrican Katrina benefits, and then take Hallibritn profits and apply them to non-katrina charities to benefit yourself on your personal tax retrun it is unethical is what the man is saying.

"A Notre Dame professor has analyzed Dick Cheney's 2005 tax return and concluded that our fair Vice President exploited a new tax law instituted post-Katrina to save himself several million dollars. It turns out that Smirky Dick used a loophole intended to encourage charitable donations for Katrina relief to write off charitable contribution which went to non-Katrina causes. That alone might not be enough to get irked about, except that it looks like the exploitation of the loophole was deliberate to minimize his overall liability, and he used Halliburton money to do it.

Cheney exercised some of his Halliburton options in late 2005, during which time that company's profits were soaring in part because of fat no-bid reconstruction contracts granted to its subsidiary KBR in the wake of Katrina. Cheney used those proceeds -- $6.8 million -- to donate to charities per his 2001 agreement to use his options only for charity.

Says the prof: "While there's nothing inappropriate about that from a legal perspective, it does demonstrate how the legislation, which was sold to the public as providing relief to Katrina victims, provided significant tax benefits to the VP (and potentially other wealthy individuals) in situations that have nothing to do with Hurricane Katrina ."

Not illegal but definitely soulless, cynical, opportunist, and greedty. So, no big surprise."

...

It's deceptive and I only posted it as one example of Cheney's greed. THere is a LOT worse.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8498

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,765834,00.html

To me the man borders on being a self-serving traitor.


wow, that greedy bastard, thanks for the update

[PlanB]

wow, that greedy bastard, thanks for the update

I will hate, 4Ever, who on here showed you how to use Quotes. (Unless it's someone I like, a pal, like Tom & other kindred spirits.)

[skate]

I will hate, 4Ever, who on here showed you how to use Quotes. (Unless it's someone I like, a pal, like Tom & other kindred spirits.)

you guys have such a hard time...

i get carried away, while attempting to "simple things".



hey, look, when toms not hear, i gots to make myself laugh.

and that don'uts meen i can spell, cuz i cant/.

i just don't want anyone to love Me, as much as i do.:rolleyes:

[PaceAdvantage]

I've always asked folks to try and edit their quotes, especially if they are long. It saves the reader time, and it saves me some bandwidth and disk space.

It seems to fall on deaf ears, most of the time, so I've pretty much given up trying to get folks to change.

It's really silly though when someone replies to a post directly above their own and they decide to quote the whole thing....lol