PDA

View Full Version : Democrats and "political theater"


hcap
03-24-2007, 04:38 AM
At least they didn't use uniformed military, active duty or veterans, as props in their political events today.

Meanwhile our prez accused them of "political theater" while using a backdrop of current or former troops in uniform as window dressing for his political press conference attacking the Democrats as un-American.

philsfan07
03-24-2007, 08:56 AM
At least they didn't use uniformed military, active duty or veterans, as props in their political events today.

Meanwhile our prez accused them of "political theater" while using a backdrop of current or former troops in uniform as window dressing for his political press conference attacking the Democrats as un-American.

Ron Artest pleaded not guilty???

Racer98
03-24-2007, 10:18 AM
What an idiot.

Ron Artest, I mean.

Was Bush's speech just to say "9/11" over and over again to win support?

Lefty
03-24-2007, 11:57 AM
We are in a war and you call our troops a prop?
9-11 happened because the fanatical Islamists want to conver the world to their way of thinking. They still do. WE should never forget 9-11, if we do, we will be facing more. We must defeat the terrorists and if we pull out of Iraq prematurely, we will be in a greater fight, face even more terror. If we don't stabalize Iraq and keep Iran from growing stronger, our way of life is lost. That's the truth that G.W. is trying to make everyone realize and face up to. Unfortunate the dems more interested in political power than the country.

Tom
03-24-2007, 02:19 PM
Lefty, you have to wonder if the Iranian kidnapping of Brittish sailors is not partly due to the new dems in power - they know they can pretty much do whatever they want to now and the quitocrats will do NOTHING.
They smell blood in the water. And maybe even see Kennedy's car it it, too!

Dave Schwartz
03-24-2007, 03:54 PM
I heard a quote from Dean Heller (R-NV) yesterday that essentially said he while he supports the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, he does not support cutting the funding to support their effort.

In other words, while they are there they need all the money they can get for supplies and equipment.


Sure made sense to me.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Secretariat
03-24-2007, 04:43 PM
I heard a quote from Dean Heller (R-NV) yesterday that essentially said he while he supports the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, he does not support cutting the funding to support their effort.

In other words, while they are there they need all the money they can get for supplies and equipment.


Sure made sense to me.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Me too Dave. The House Bill doesn't cut funding, but gives the Prez everything he wants monetarily. The major issue is the timetable attached. It will be interesting if the President if given all the money he asks to fund the troops, decides to veto it because Iraqi accountability is attached to it. If so, he may be the one doing the voting against supporting the troops. The man has shown no compromise on this debacle. That is why his poll numbers are around 30%

And Hcap good point. Putting the military behind him for a photo op speech was about as "poltical" as it gets.

Tom
03-24-2007, 05:48 PM
Let's not hold up money for peanut storers - not growers, storers. and spinach famers. After, they are putting thier lives on the line every day too, right?

The dems have only proven what I said all along - disguting bastards and bitches, every one of them. Disgrace to America. And traitors. Pelosi is a POS in the first degree. and Sec cannot spin it any other way - it is surrender by a house full of cowards and scoundrels.

Dave Schwartz
03-24-2007, 06:38 PM
Geez, I must have getten it wrong, huh?

LOL

Oh, what the heck. I call them as I see them.

Lefty
03-24-2007, 08:50 PM
The timetable is the poison pill. The enemy knows when we'll leave, they lay back, take over Iraq and we get to have more 9-11's. Hope the Pres sticks to his guns.

46zilzal
03-24-2007, 09:59 PM
The timetable is the poison pill. The enemy knows when we'll leave, they lay back, take over Iraq and we get to have more 9-11's. Hope the Pres sticks to his guns.
You mean from the Saudi's since they are behind most of it? Of course he will stick to his guns to protect Bandar and daddies Carlyle friends!!

Lefty
03-24-2007, 10:15 PM
46, you must be a disciple of Michael Moore or some other far far left person or persons.
See if you can ccome up with some orig thinking here: Q: What do you think will happen if we set a date to leave Iraq and adhere to it?

Lefty
03-24-2007, 10:17 PM
You mean from the Saudi's since they are behind most of it? Of course he will stick to his guns to protect Bandar and daddies Carlyle friends!!
Your thinking all revolves around Bush hatred. Think about the free world for a change and the implications of an announced withdrawel.

46zilzal
03-24-2007, 10:23 PM
Your thinking all revolves around Bush hatred. Think about the free world for a change and the implications of an announced withdrawel.
Well since NO one should have gone there in the first place it is a moot point. The more I read in Woodward's latest STATE of DENIAL , the more I am convinced of it from the clowns own quotes.

also, Washington Post
Stepping Into Iraq
Saudi Arabia Will Protect Sunnis if the U.S. Leaves

By Nawaf Obaid
Wednesday, November 29, 2006

In February 2003, a month before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, warned President Bush that he would be "solving one problem and creating five more" if he removed Saddam Hussein by force. Had Bush heeded his advice, Iraq would not now be on the brink of full-blown civil war and disintegration.

Lefty
03-24-2007, 11:38 PM
zilly, you don't seem capable of a thghtful answer when pressed. It's not a moot point. What we do or don't do now in Iraq affects the world, so you see it's not purely academic. Zilly, the rutabaga is you. Once again you have used a word incorrectly. Shame on you for calling others names.
What do YOU think will happen if we give a timetable for leaving Iraq and adhere to it? One more chance, zilly. Put down the lib books and think. Are you up to it?
Btw, if we hadn't removed Saddam he would still be murdering, raping and torturing his own people. He might even have a nuke by now or hit us with biologicals. Bush did the right thing. But the q is now, what are the consequences of leaving prematurely?

Indulto
03-25-2007, 12:12 AM
... Oh, what the heck. I call them as I see them.:lol:
See no evil or steward's vision? :D

Lefty
03-25-2007, 12:24 AM
Lefty, you have to wonder if the Iranian kidnapping of Brittish sailors is not partly due to the new dems in power - they know they can pretty much do whatever they want to now and the quitocrats will do NOTHING.
They smell blood in the water. And maybe even see Kennedy's car it it, too!
Tom, you are right on, i have no doubt.

Tom
03-25-2007, 01:09 AM
46 is obvioulsy incapable fo logic or independent thinking. He knows Bush=Bad and cannot get past that. the typical small, closed mind democrats love and strive to churn out in our schools. Poster boy for dead air.

finfan
03-25-2007, 02:09 AM
I supported this war in the beginning and obviously we are in a mess of shit right now. Having said that, I don't see a big deal in setting a withdrawal date. Does anyone really think that the insurgents are looking for our withdrawal date and saying "Hey, let's just sit tight and wait for the Americans to leave and then we'll unleash our suicide bombers and IED"s"? Of course not. Their raison d'etre is to kill infidels.

The bottom line is, when will the Iraqi's take back control of their country, embrace freedom and put down the insurgency. The withdrawal date is aimed more at them to get their act together and stop using us as a crutch. Get your shit together or you'll be crushed by the insurgency or opposition. Is there any better motivation than that for the Iraqi leaders?

This is a clash of civilizations plain and simple.

PaceAdvantage
03-25-2007, 02:52 AM
I supported this war in the beginning and obviously we are in a mess of shit right now.

We're in a mess of shit? Not really. We can just withdraw and go back to life as usual.

Remember, the left has begun to tell us how 9/11 was no big deal (two buildings, that's all) and that the threat of terrorism is overblown and used by the right (ie. Bushco) to further their 'agenda'. Here on this very message board, the left (not to be confused with the poster 'Lefty') has told us that no single act of terrorism threatens our country. Nothing can really threaten our country. We're too big and too powerful.

With that said (by the left), and if we are to believe it, then it's not US who is in a mess of shit, it's the Iraqis.

hcap
03-25-2007, 07:01 AM
I'll let Zbig take this...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301613.html

Terrorized by 'War on Terror'
How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America

By Zbigniew Brzezinski
Sunday, March 25, 2007; Page B01

The "war on terror" has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.

The damage these three words have done -- a classic self-inflicted wound -- is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.

But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a "war on terror" did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Support for President Bush in the 2004 elections was also mobilized in part by the notion that "a nation at war" does not change its commander in chief in midstream.

rrpic6
03-25-2007, 08:09 AM
hcap:

Ziggy must have watched V for Vendetta recently. Eerily, well done movie on how a Government uses fear as its only tool to keep its people in line. Media propaganda fuels the fires of more fear. A Rush-like charcter in V gets his just desserts. A Jay Leno-like character disappears after trying to spoof the man in charge. As in real life, the people their eventually have enough of civil rights vioalations and revolt to remove the fear mongers.
The Bush mantra of 'We'll fight them over there, so they dont' come here" is the tops in moronic logic. How will they get here prez? Navy, Air Force? Create a big oil slick then slide on their bellies? Teach camels to swim 5000 miles? A foreign exchange program of outsourcing our jobs in return for low paying migrant Iraqi insurgents to unload wal-Mart ships from China? Come to mexico, then put on fake Mexican masks and walk over the border to work at Tyson chicken? Maybe they'll only get as far as Dubai and work at Haliburton tax free and save their money for a later invasion.

Tom
03-25-2007, 11:10 AM
I think we should pull our troops out of Iraq and re-deploy them - at the North Pole. We need to fight the real enemy, Global Warming up there before we have to fight it here, on our shores.

hcap
03-25-2007, 12:59 PM
rrpic6
hcap:

Ziggy must have watched V for Vendetta recently. Eerily, well done movie on how a Government uses fear as its only tool to keep its people in line. Media propaganda fuels the fires of more fearI am not at the point yet of believing "George" for Gendetta has arrived. More like a wannabee 1984. An extremely dumbed down version that has a big brother that can't shoot straight. Think Darth Cheney having a few, shooting his friend, and trying to keep the media clueless. Works briefly then the shit hits the fan.The history of the birth of the advertising industry illustrates how media manipulation is attempted.

http://www.vault.com/nr/newsmain.jsp?nr_page=3&ch_id=265&article_id=16545966&cat_id=2871

The "Father of Spin"

..Many of today's major PR firms were founded in the period directly following the war, and the basic groundwork of the industry was laid by the founders of those firms. The business as we know it was largely the brainchild of Edward Bernays, the fabled "Father of Spin." The nephew of Sigmund Freud, Bernays is said to have inherited the famed psychoanalyst's knack for understanding human behavior. He also possessed a trait critical to the PR business -- the ability to anticipate changes in public opinion. Early in his career, he worked as a press agent for the theatre. As a member of the CPI, he helped sell the war as an effort to "Make the World Safe for Democracy." In 1919, Bernays set up shop in New York, calling himself a "public relations counselor," and handled communications and marketing-related "persuasion projects" for clients including the U.S. War Department and the American Tobacco Company. For the former, he convinced businesses to hire returning war veterans. For the latter, he created a campaign to convince women that smoking helped them to stay slim. He claimed smoking also disinfected the mouth, and went on to paint cigarettes as figurative "torches of freedom" for women, encouraging them to contest the taboo against female smoking in public by marching down Fifth Avenue on Easter Day in 1929, cigarettes in hand.

Bernays published the first book on the PR profession, Crystallizing Public Opinion, in 1922. He felt that the average man is an intellectually limited, conformist creature, so it was up to the intellectual elite to mold public opinion. He felt that the so-called "intelligent few" were essentially social scientists who could guide the masses and influence history by applying the theories of mass psychology to corporate and political agendas. Not surprisingly, Bernays was approached for counsel by both Adolf Hitler and Spain's Francisco Franco (he turned both down). An Austrian-born Jew, Bernays reportedly lamented the fact that Joseph Goebbels, the notorious Nazi, kept a copy of Crystallizing Public Opinion on his desk.

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

...19th and 20th centuries

Gabriel Tarde's Laws of Imitation (1890) and Gustave Le Bon's The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind (1897) were two of the first codifications of propaganda techniques, which influenced many writers afterward, including Sigmund Freud. Hitler's Mein Kampf is heavily influenced by Le Bon's theories. Journalist Walter Lippman, in Public Opinion (1922) also worked on the subject, as well as psychologist Edward Bernays, a nephew of Freud, early in the 20th century.

During World War I, Lippman and Bernays were hired by then United States President, Woodrow Wilson, to participate in the Creel Commission, the mission of which was to sway popular opinion in favor of entering the war, on the side of the United Kingdom. The Creel Commission provided themes for speeches by "four-minute men" at public functions, and also encouraged censorship of the American press. The Commission was so unpopular that after the war, Congress closed it down without providing funding to organize and archive its papers.

The war propaganda campaign of Lippman and Bernays produced within six months such an intense anti-German hysteria as to permanently impress American business (and Adolf Hitler, among others) with the potential of large-scale propaganda to control public opinion. Bernays coined the terms "group mind" and "engineering consent", important concepts in practical propaganda work.

The current public relations industry is a direct outgrowth of Lippman's and Bernays' work and is still used extensively by the United States government. For the first half of the 20th century Bernays and Lippman themselves ran a very successful public relations firm. World War II saw continued use of propaganda as a weapon of war, both by Hitler's propagandist Joseph Goebbels and the British Political Warfare Executive, as well as the United States Office of War Information.

.."An appeal to one's emotions is, perhaps, a more obvious, and the most common propaganda method than those utilized by some other more subtle and insidious forms. For instance, propaganda may be transmitted indirectly or implicitly, through an ostensibly fair and balanced debate or argument. This can be done to great effect in conjunction with a broadly targeted, broadcast news format. In such a setting, techniques like, "red herring", and other ploys (such as Ignoratio elenchi), are often used to divert the audience from a critical issue, while the intended message is suggested through indirect means."

JustRalph
03-25-2007, 02:07 PM
I supported this war in the beginning and obviously we are in a mess of shit right now. Having said that, I don't see a big deal in setting a withdrawal date. Does anyone really think that the insurgents are looking for our withdrawal date and saying "Hey, let's just sit tight and wait for the Americans to leave and then we'll unleash our suicide bombers and IED"s"? Of course not. Their raison d'etre is to kill infidels.

The bottom line is, when will the Iraqi's take back control of their country, embrace freedom and put down the insurgency. The withdrawal date is aimed more at them to get their act together and stop using us as a crutch. Get your shit together or you'll be crushed by the insurgency or opposition. Is there any better motivation than that for the Iraqi leaders?

This is a clash of civilizations plain and simple.

Completely off base. You first call Iraq a mess of shit when even the liberal press admits that 85% of the country is stable. Setting a withdrawal date does in fact allow the insurgency to plan ahead. There are other ways to provide incentives to the Iraqi's to take a more active role. Most of them are political, or monetary. We need to take away political or monetary goals if they don't step up. But we don't set a date and make it public.

You flippant treatment of Iraqi failure "Get your shit together or you'll be crushed by the insurgency " means that you don't realize that their failure is as much a problem for us as it is to them. In the long run, maybe a much worse problem for us.

You might as well hand over the country to Osama Bin Laden. The Saudi's say they won't let it happen, but are you going to allow the Saudi's to take over another country? I don't think we have much interest in that.

JustRalph
03-25-2007, 02:16 PM
Zbigniew Brzezinski? the architect of giving away things under Carter and Nixon. Look it up. This guy did nothing but barter our national security away the entire time he worked in government. He is one of the reasons Iran is the country it is today. Yeah, like I am going to give that weasel any credence.

rrpic, did you actually say this?

The Bush mantra of 'We'll fight them over there, so they dont' come here" is the tops in moronic logic. How will they get here prez? Navy, Air Force? Create a big oil slick then slide on their bellies? Teach camels to swim 5000 miles? A foreign exchange program of outsourcing our jobs in return for low paying migrant Iraqi insurgents to unload wal-Mart ships from China? Come to mexico, then put on fake Mexican masks and walk over the border to work at Tyson chicken?

How in the hell did the last terrorists boys from 9-11 get here? How did those who blew the trade center in 92 get here? They didn't have a Navy, or an Air Force. And the Mexican border is an option.

You believe they can't get here? You were smoking something when you made this post. You are smarter than this..............

kenwoodallpromos
03-25-2007, 02:17 PM
"wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves."
_____
What is ZB's significance of using the word "distant", if not to propogandize by underplaying the threat?
I have a slightly different take, since 1 of the Brit-to- US airliners these non-warrior jihadists planned to blow up was destined for SF Airport, which is visible from where I live.

Tom
03-25-2007, 03:49 PM
Why is the mulem world not outrages by the insurgency in Iraq?
I mean, they went bonkers over a few cartoon,s yet seem to ignore the use of muslem children in suicide bombing attack!
Ole mohamed must be proud.
Mainstream islam.......where the hell are you.....or is that YOU behind the burkhas? :ThmbDown::ThmbDown::ThmbDown:

Secretariat
03-25-2007, 06:40 PM
See if you can ccome up with some orig thinking here: Q: What do you think will happen if we set a date to leave Iraq and adhere to it?

Good question Lefty. I think what will happen is Iraqis will have to get off their butts and fight to maintain the country they want.

I think Republican Chuck Hagel said it well today,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

Hagel: Some see impeachment as option
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
Sun Mar 25

WASHINGTON - With his go-it-alone approach on Iraq, President Bush is flouting Congress and the public, so angering lawmakers that some consider impeachment an option over his war policy, a senator from Bush's own party said Sunday.

,,,

Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed — if a president really believes that, then there are — what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that," said Hagel, who is considering a 2008 presidential run.

On Sunday, Hagel said he was bothered by Bush's apparent disregard of congressional sentiment on Iraq, such as his decision to send additional troops. He said lawmakers now stood ready to stand up to the president when necessary.

In the April edition of Esquire magazine, Hagel described Bush as someone who doesn't believe he's accountable to anyone. "He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends on how this goes," Hagel told the magazine.

"We have clearly a situation where the president has lost the confidence of the American people in his war effort," Hagel said. "It is now time, going into the fifth year of that effort, for the Congress to step forward and be part of setting some boundaries and some conditions as to our involvement."

"This is not a monarchy," he added, referring to the possibility that some lawmakers may seek impeachment. "There are ways to deal with it. And I would hope the president understands that."

Secretariat
03-25-2007, 06:42 PM
How in the hell did the last terrorists boys from 9-11 get here?

Not from Iraq. Most were Saudis.

btw..the we'll fight them over there crap was fed to us during Nam as well. Now GW is opening trade relations with North Vietnam. Maybe that's what he meant we'll be fighting them in terms of trade.

Secretariat
03-25-2007, 06:49 PM
Remember, the left has begun to tell us how 9/11 was no big deal

I don't know anyone who has said that except your own fantasy. Maybe there's a nutcase out there, but to infer "the left" says that is not only inaccurate, but partisan hogwash.

Lefty
03-25-2007, 06:53 PM
sec, don't think anyone who's jumping on the "let's critizise Bush Bandwagon" cause he has his own political aspirations is to credible.

We didn't have to fight the communists over here cause a man named Reagan came along. Now we have a Bush who sees the fanatical Islamists for what they are and knows what they are capable of. You and the rest of the world had better wake up.

Lefty
03-25-2007, 06:55 PM
I don't know anyone who has said that except your own fantasy. Maybe there's a nutcase out there, but to infer "the left" says that is not only inaccurate, but partisan hogwash.
Kidding, right? I hear it alla time that the pres is fear mongering; see it on this board alla time too.
Yerah, another "rightwing conspiracy" just like the time we made up the story about Monica and Bill.

46zilzal
03-25-2007, 08:03 PM
We didn't have to fight the communists over here cause a man named Reagan came along. Now we have a Bush who sees the fanatical Islamists for what they are and knows what they are capable of. You and the rest of the world had better wake up.
bull on both counts

Tom
03-25-2007, 08:57 PM
Since we started keeping track of each other, I make it 46 - 5, me - 0! :kiss:

Lefty
03-25-2007, 10:01 PM
bull on both counts
You always say these things, but can't debate your position.

46zilzal
03-25-2007, 10:25 PM
You always say these things, but can't debate your position.
Ronnie was just at the helm when the Russian version of Communism bit the dust. HE DIDN'T do it.

The rutabaga has not done CRAP to stop terrorism.

Lefty
03-26-2007, 12:02 AM
The big prob with your statement zilly is: The facts prove you wrong. Reagan put the Russians in an arms race that busted them; plus they feared "starwars"
Bush's policies have stopped several terrorist attacks and have cght and or killed a multitude of terrorist leaders. It was all in the news; get away from the lib blogs and fimd out what's really happening.

PaceAdvantage
03-26-2007, 02:30 AM
I don't know anyone who has said that except your own fantasy. Maybe there's a nutcase out there, but to infer "the left" says that is not only inaccurate, but partisan hogwash.

Who cares what you DON'T know. I am stating what I KNOW to be true.

PaceAdvantage
03-26-2007, 02:34 AM
I think Republican Chuck Hagel said it well today,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

Hagel: Some see impeachment as option


It's becoming readily apparent to this observer that what every major city in America ought to do is paint a big fat bulls eye over itself, yell "!%@& THIS" and then bend over and take the jihad right up the proverbial ass.

That's what the left is doing to this country.

And that's what is going to happen if and when we pull out of Iraq prematurely.

PaceAdvantage
03-26-2007, 02:39 AM
Not from Iraq. Most were Saudis.

Yeah, but they're in Iraq now....lots of Al Queda and lots of other terrorists. It's now fact that they are in Iraq, where we have a fantastic opportunity to take them out, but once again, politicians on both sides of the aisle have screwed things up royally.

And now they want us to pull out. Good God man, are you all out of your minds?

Why is the right so terribly afraid to tackle the left these days? This isn't just some intellectual mumble jumble that is on the line in this case. It's the future security of the United States of America.

Tom
03-26-2007, 07:32 AM
Ronnie was just at the helm when the Russian version of Communism bit the dust. HE DIDN'T do it.

The rutabaga has not done CRAP to stop terrorism.

Not ture. thier defeat in Afghansistan was largely responsible for thier fall, and it was "Ronnie" who was financing much of the resistance. The ability to use shoulder missles to stop helicopters was the nail in the coffin. Guess who's missles?

rrpic6
03-26-2007, 08:39 AM
It's becoming readily apparent to this observer that what every major city in America ought to do is paint a big fat bulls eye over itself, yell "!%@& THIS" and then bend over and take the jihad right up the proverbial ass.

That's what the left is doing to this country.

And that's what is going to happen if and when we pull out of Iraq prematurely.

It sounds like you want to go back to the 9/11 attacks equals Saddam/Iraq BS.
The people that had some wealth in Iraq have fled to Jordan and Syria. A Jordanian Sunni living here has said the property value in Jordan has tripled in the last year do to this influx, as well as supply and demand. This leaves many of the poor and desparate Iraqi's home to deal with, or participate in the ongoing Civil War. When we pull out, it will continue to go on without skipping a beat. The troops can then come back to America and regroup to defend the borders here. Bush has left the door open now for any terrorist to walk right into America thru Mexico. A revamped INS is already underway, to better screen anyone entering the USA.

The most logical reason were still staying in Iraq is to protect the oil fields. By taking down Saddam, Iran has no fear of taking over the oil production from a nation with no leadership or Army. The puppet regime we helped install will fold like a deck of cards when Iran wants in. Even the Bush diehard believers will know its been all about the oil, all along, when he re-invades Iraq to prevent Iran from running the oil production.

Since you seem to know how the Left thinks, I'll state I know how the Right thinks. The Right wants the mess in Iraq to continue. Its organized chaos with Sunni's vs. Shiites. This leaves the U.S. to stand-by and profit, as well as Haliburton and Blackstone, etc. We keep an eye on the Civil feud but try not to participate. The U. S. allows the Civil unrest to continue as we slowly take over the oil production, as well as build Military bases in the heart of the Middle East to never allow Iran to combine territory with Iraq. The U. S. becomes the new Israel, hated but too powerful to remove from the Middle East.

betchatoo
03-26-2007, 09:44 AM
We're in a mess of shit? Not really. We can just withdraw and go back to life as usual.

Remember, the left has begun to tell us how 9/11 was no big deal (two buildings, that's all) and that the threat of terrorism is overblown and used by the right (ie. Bushco) to further their 'agenda'. Here on this very message board, the left (not to be confused with the poster 'Lefty') has told us that no single act of terrorism threatens our country. Nothing can really threaten our country. We're too big and too powerful.

With that said (by the left), and if we are to believe it, then it's not US who is in a mess of shit, it's the Iraqis.
I want to know, P.A., who has said this? I've never heard it stated by anyone. If someone has said it I will contribute time and money to make sure they are put out of office.

We have never had such a majority of support from both sides in this country as we did immediately following the bombings. I think the support for going into Afghanistan was 95% plus (and I hope the others just misunderstood the question). I don't think we should have invaded Iraq, but that doesn't matter at this point, we are there. As far as I'm concerned the reason for leaving Iraq is that we have never fought the war right. If we have goals then set troop levels and support to meet them. At our current rate, if we are going to stay until we stabilize the current government we won't leave this millennium.

Lefty
03-26-2007, 11:13 AM
rrpic, yes it's about keeping Iran and other terrorists from controlling Iraq and that does include the oil fields. Do you think we should just leave and let Iran control Iraq and the oil fields? Do you know what that would do to us economically plus giving them more power to wreak world havoc. Is that what you want?

Lefty
03-26-2007, 11:17 AM
BTW, you call it b.s. that we invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam. The fact that all the terrorists have come into there and fght us so hard proves that Iraq tremendously important to them. So, Bush was right. I know it's hard for you on the left to take.

46zilzal
03-26-2007, 11:50 AM
BTW, you call it b.s. that we invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam. The fact that all the terrorists have come into there and fght us so hard proves that Iraq tremendously important to them. So, Bush was right. I know it's hard for you on the left to take.
no it proves that the RUTBAGA gave them a place and a cause to further their jihad....Every study I have seen says that the terrorist potential has increased dramatically since the idiot started this folly.

Tom
03-26-2007, 11:56 AM
And of course invading Pakistan to get Bin Laden would not have done this.

46zilzal
03-26-2007, 11:58 AM
And of course invading Pakistan to get Bin Laden would not have done this.
At least an invasion there had a logical reason.

Light
03-26-2007, 01:31 PM
The reasons we went into Iraq and the reasons we are there now is still the same. The question is what is the real reason. The Whitehouse would like you to believe it is democracy,terrorism and 9/11. The other side says it is oil and strategic military control.

Looking at it from a detectives point of view,the fact that those 3 reasons now stated by the Whitehouse were not the imminent threat stated that led Congress to O.K. the invasion and that the primary reason stated for invading was WMD's which has been categorically proven false and fabricated makes the Whitehouse position pretty shaky.If they werent telling the truth then, are they now? If intelligence was flawed then,how is it not flawed now? Not only that, WMD's are not even mentioned anymore,further exposing it as a lie. Pretty much like a criminal who changes his mind as the story unfolds and new evidence is brought to light.

The arguments of the other side have yet to be challenged in a damaging way. Considering the suspects involved Bush Cheney and Rice were all in the oil business at one point lends creedence to the oil argument.The fact that Haliburton and others are profitting from the war and Haliburton has recently decided to move its headquarters to Dubai is another confirmation that business is good in the Middle East.

From a historical perspective the U.S used to enjoy the monetary fruits of Iraqi oil before the Iraqi revolution in 1959 and have been trying to re capture that bliss ever since. There is also the issue of protection of ,Israel, who are so closely tied to Congress that they practically own it with their members and lobbying especially as noted with the recent Aipac meeting. This pro Iraq war, Israeli lobby, is so powerful they draw Cheney and Pelosi to speak.Control of the region not only benefits Israel and would allow them to continue their oppression and dehuminization of their Muslim neighbors further flaming anti-American hate and fostering terrorism,but insures safety of the oil reserves.The fact that Bush and company stubbornly refuse to leave Iraq despite the high costs in American lives and economic burdens suggests his game is mercenary.The "fight them over there,not here",makes little sense considering Al-Queda is a world wide organization,mobile, and not confined to Iraq.

It is clear just from this little evidence that the Whitehouse has got oil,war and control on its mind,will only listen to those who serve their interests, and is using its authoriy,propaganda,fear and spin to deny any criminal wrongdoing. This criminal wrongdoing has the potential for unprecendented world catastrophe. It is ironic that a worldwide poll considers the greatest terrorists and greatest threat to peace to live in the Whitehouse,not in Iraq.

Tom
03-26-2007, 02:19 PM
At least an invasion there had a logical reason.
Same outcome.
Now we are fighting Al Qeda in Iraq.
Two routes to the same point we find ourselves today.
But no Sadaam, and a foothold in the middle of things - easier to work from.
I'd say we chose the right path.

Tom
03-26-2007, 02:21 PM
So where is the Iraq oil?
How much have we taken out?

You posted:
"The Whitehouse would like you to believe it is democracy,terrorism and 9/11."

The left would like youbeliee it was not. They would like to believe Bush lied.
Even when EVERYONE was under the same beliefs.

JustRalph
03-26-2007, 04:11 PM
Looking at it from a detectives point of view,the fact that those 3 reasons now stated by the Whitehouse were not the imminent threat stated that led Congress to O.K. the invasion and that the primary reason stated for invading was WMD's which has been categorically proven false and fabricated makes the Whitehouse position pretty shaky.If they werent telling the truth then, are they now? If intelligence was flawed then,how is it not flawed now? Not only that, WMD's are not even mentioned anymore,further exposing it as a lie. Pretty much like a criminal who changes his mind as the story unfolds and new evidence is brought to light.


If you think the thing was fabricated, why are you not calling for the arrest of the people in this video?

They must have cooked up the fabrication.......they should be imprisoned, no? This stuff and the first half of this video covers back to 1998. So, why no special prosecutor ? Why no investigation into the intelligience findings in the mid to late 90's? Why......Why!!!!!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uVbu1zBid-o

As usual, we find giant holes in your theory.................

PaceAdvantage
03-26-2007, 04:25 PM
I want to know, P.A., who has said this? I've never heard it stated by anyone. If someone has said it I will contribute time and money to make sure they are put out of office.

I never claimed these were elected officials that stated this....

Light
03-26-2007, 04:49 PM
[B]If you think the thing was fabricated, why are you not calling for the arrest of the people in this video?


Because its one thing to believe a lie and another to act on it. I'll give that to the Clinton administration who was approached by hawks such as Wofowitz to invade Iraq. Instead Clinton tried to deal with it by sanctions. But Clinton is just as guilty of genocide as Bush. 1 million died from those sanctions which went far beyond punishing the Iraqi government. 1/2 million children died as well due to the sanctions which Allbright acknowledged and said she would do again. Yes Clinton and Allbright should also be tried as world criminals as well as Blair who is being forced to leave this summer because of his idiotic allegance to a failed Bush policy in Iraq.

When it comes to the issues of the Middle East there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans and the Jewish control of Congress.I agree the Democrats are capitolizing on the failure of Republicans in Iraq,but I'll play along if it stops the senseless carnage. Contrary to the supporters of the war where people still believe whats well known now to be lies,and/or faulty intelligence,and corporate greed.

Indulto
03-26-2007, 05:16 PM
... There is also the issue of protection of ,Israel, who are so closely tied to Congress that they practically own it with their members and lobbying especially as noted with the recent Aipac meeting. This pro Iraq war, Israeli lobby, is so powerful they draw Cheney and Pelosi to speak.Control of the region not only benefits Israel and would allow them to continue their oppression and dehuminization of their Muslim neighbors ...Light,
Absent the above portion, you actually had a compelling argument for a change.

I liked it better when you were hatless. Now you heartlessly lurch lower again with a hatful of hateful commentary toward the record you already own for least-loved Looney Tunes. :D

hcap
03-26-2007, 05:25 PM
We are acting out the juvenile fantasy appropriate for junior high school undergraduates. The "bully on the block" approach to geopolitics.

The gross oversimplification of complex political, economic and cultural issues-reduced to good/evil Manichean knee jerk pablum. The problem is not that there is no threat, but the unabashed EXAGGERATION of that threat into an all or nothing existential conflict. Just like the hyping of WMDs and the so-called imminent threat of Saddam, and the axis of evil into a series of never ending bullies out to take over the world. If any one really believes "they hate us for our freedoms" is seriously in denial about how these conflicts arise.

Yeehaw may be fine for saturday morning cartoons, but is pretty foolish as a foreign policy. For instance.

http://www.consortiumnews.com./Print/2007/032507.html

Lebanon Civil War

Similarly, the context of the Lebanese violence is also ignored by the “tough-guy” narrative. In Lebanon, President Reagan dispatched U.S. Marines to serve as peacekeepers in the wake of the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and a multi-sided civil war raging among Lebanese factions.

However, the U.S. status gradually changed through “mission creep” that transformed the Marines into belligerents. Heeding the advice of then-national security adviser Robert McFarlane, Reagan authorized the USS New Jersey to fire long-distance shells into Muslim villages, killing civilians and convincing Shiite militants that the United States had joined the conflict.

On Oct. 23, 1983, Shiite militants struck back, sending a suicide truck bomber through U.S. security positions, demolishing the high-rise Marine barracks in Beirut and killing 241 American servicemen. Reagan soon repositioned U.S. forces offshore.

..“tough-guy-ism” – the concept of picking fights and battling until “victory” whatever the ghastly cost."

Collateral damage is the smoke screen that makes our actions palatable to us, but not to the collateralized. Not all conflicts are reduced to WWII and the "good fight" with Hitler.

lsbets
03-26-2007, 05:34 PM
When it comes to the issues of the Middle East there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans and the Jewish control of Congress.

It didn't take Third Reich Light long this time.

46zilzal
03-26-2007, 05:40 PM
We are acting out the juvenile fantasy appropriate for junior high school undergraduates. The "bully on the block" approach to geopolitics.

The gross oversimplification of complex political, economic and cultural issues-reduced to good/evil Manichean knee jerk pablum. The problem is not that there is no threat, but the unabashed EXAGGERATION of that threat into an all or nothing existential conflict. Just like the hyping of WMDs and the [I]so-called imminent threat of Saddam, and the axis of evil into a series of never ending bullies out to take over the world. If any one really believes "they hate us for our freedoms" is seriously in denial about how these conflicts arise.


well stated...More crap like "remember the Maine" or the Punic Wars (started because Rome had a huge standing army and no one left to fight so, like the rutabaga, they sought out one on an excuse)

Light
03-26-2007, 05:49 PM
To discuss U.S. foreign policy in the middle east without consideration of Israeli interests is pure fiction.

PaceAdvantage
03-26-2007, 06:00 PM
To discuss U.S. foreign policy in the middle east without consideration of Israeli interests is pure fiction.

And here I thought it was all about "Big Oil"

Man am I confused.

hcap
03-26-2007, 06:07 PM
If the bushies can have multiple explanations for why, so can we.
Besides ours haven't been discredited and probably are closer to the truth.

JustRalph
03-26-2007, 06:08 PM
now we see the old Light coming out..............you know..........the one who reminds me of David Duke.......... :lol:

lsbets
03-26-2007, 06:16 PM
If the bushies can have multiple explanations for why, so can we.
Besides ours haven't been discredited and probably are closer to the truth.

If you count Light as a part of "we" then you need to seriously evaluate yourself. As much as Light would like to go back and take away his choice of words, he wasn't talking about Zionists or Israel, he made it pretty clear he was talking about the Jews - big difference.

Secretariat
03-26-2007, 06:29 PM
We didn't have to fight the communists over here cause a man named Reagan came along.

Lefty,

Reagan was elected in 1980. What did he have to do with the end of the Vietnam War? You would have thought when Carter took over the the commies would've invaded us if the Nam theory was accurate. We need to fight them over there before we fight them here crap. Didn't happen. We won't be fighting Iraqis here either if we pull out. Quit peddling fear.

46zilzal
03-26-2007, 06:31 PM
Quit peddling fear.
Fear isn't what is in his cat box scooper he empties onto his deam world postings.

Secretariat
03-26-2007, 06:32 PM
Kidding, right? I hear it alla time that the pres is fear mongering; see it on this board alla time too.
Yerah, another "rightwing conspiracy" just like the time we made up the story about Monica and Bill.

Go back and read my post that you responded to Lefty. Your reponse doesn't even relate to it.

Secretariat
03-26-2007, 06:34 PM
It's becoming readily apparent to this observer that what every major city in America ought to do is paint a big fat bulls eye over itself, yell "!%@& THIS" and then bend over and take the jihad right up the proverbial ass.

That's what the left is doing to this country.

And that's what is going to happen if and when we pull out of Iraq prematurely.

And this is your response to a Republican's comments. Interesting.

Light
03-26-2007, 06:36 PM
Aipac President Friedman:

"AIPAC meets with every candidate running for Congress. These candidates receive in-depth briefings to help them completely understand the complexities of Israel's predicament and that of the Middle East as a whole. We even ask each candidate to author a 'position paper' on their views of the U.S.-Israel relationship--so it's clear where they stand on the subject."

Members of Congress, staffers and administration officials have come to rely on AIPACs memos

Thus when the world was horrified at the Israeli slaughter in Lebanon last summer,the lone dissenter for stopping the carnage was the U.S. and congress did not vote for a cease fire due to AIPAC's lobbying which prided itself for its congressional control in such a crisis. Friedman said:

"Everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist and is connected to Hizbollah.Let Israel finish the job".

This is the kind of maniacal madness the American Congress allows itself to be influenced by.And you wonder why they hate us.

Light
03-26-2007, 06:41 PM
And here I thought it was all about "Big Oil"

Man am I confused.


Israeli interests and U.S. interests are symbiotic. BTW,Israel has been specifically told to stay out of Iraq.

Indulto
03-26-2007, 06:49 PM
If you count Light as a part of "we" then you need to seriously evaluate yourself.Ah, we didn't fight "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" concept over there, so now we have to fight it here. ;)

hcap,
Given that lsbets may be trying to divide and conquer here, and knowing your ability to see the wider picture in far more detail than most, it still appears on the surface that your willingness to resist bigotry and discrimination on the right is absent when it comes from the left. If it helps any, Light is so far left now, he loops around and meets Lefty at infinity.:lol:

hcap
03-26-2007, 06:51 PM
PaceAdvantage
Originally Posted by Light
To discuss U.S. foreign policy in the middle east without consideration of Israeli interests is pure fiction.
And here I thought it was all about "Big Oil"

Man am I confused.This is what Pa said in response to Light. I was pointing out the discredited justifications used to launch this war. I absoutely agree with "To discuss U.S. foreign policy in the middle east without consideration of Israeli interests is pure fiction" You have tendency to try to associate me with Nazis, just like your ass**le leader equated Saddam with Hitler. You are guilty of Ad Hitleritum. Aipac has an enormous influence. Are they the reason we went to war? More of a chance that their involvement helped shape the overall foreign folly-cy, than Saddam shipped his WMDs to Syria

Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.

"The policy paper said, "Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions."

James Colbert...The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) is a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit think-tank focusing on issues of United States national security. JINSA's stated aim is three-fold: to ensure a strong and effective U.S. national security policy; to educate American leaders on what it views as the vital strategic relationship between the United States and Israel; and to strengthen U.S. cooperation with democratic allies, including Taiwan, Jordan, Hungary, Turkey, India, and NATO member nations, amongst others.

..JINSA's advisory board includes such notable figures as Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, and James Woolsey, while Vice President Dick Cheney, US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and Undersecretary of Defense for policy Douglas Feith were all on Jinsa’s board of advisers before they entered the Bush administration. JINSA is officially a non-partisan organization

The actors bolded are also up to their necks in bushite babble

lsbets
03-26-2007, 06:54 PM
Ah, we didn't fight "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" concept over there, so now we have to fight it here. ;)

hcap,
Given that lsbets may be trying to divide and conquer here, and knowing your ability to see the wider picture in far more detail than most, it still appears on the surface that your willingness to resist bigotry and discrimination on the right is absent when it comes from the left. If it helps any, Light is so far left now, he loops around and meets Lefty at infinity.:lol:

Indulto, hcaps repeated willingness to defend and stand up for light's bigotry and hatefullness is pretty revealing to me. There is no resistance, he embraces him. Its not a matter of divide and conquer - they appear to be essentially the same to me, one is coy and discreet, the other is pretty obvious. Too bad he's still got you fooled.

Light
03-26-2007, 06:54 PM
If you count Light as a part of "we" then you need to seriously evaluate yourself. As much as Light would like to go back and take away his choice of words, he wasn't talking about Zionists or Israel, he made it pretty clear he was talking about the Jews - big difference.

That would make all Jews who are against the Iraq war and Israel's callous treatment of Palestinians as self hating. You seem to want to slander and pidgeonhole me as an antisemite. Tactics reserved for bigots.

lsbets
03-26-2007, 06:57 PM
That would make all Jews who are against the Iraq war and Israel's callous treatment of Palestinians as self hating. You seem to want to slander and pidgeonhole me as an antisemite. Tactics reserved for bigots.

You were the one who chose the words "Jewish control of Congress". Your choice of words, no pigeonholing needed on my part. Just about everyone has you figured out.

Light
03-26-2007, 07:06 PM
You were the one who chose the words "Jewish control of Congress". Your choice of words, no pigeonholing needed on my part. Just about everyone has you figured out.

Pat Buchanan has called congress "Israeli occupied territory".Is he antisemitic too? Just because you are ignorant of how congress is run,you shouldn't mouth off and accuse people of something they're not.

hcap
03-26-2007, 07:16 PM
lsbets..they appear to be essentially the same to me, one is coy and discreet, the other is pretty obvious. Too bad he's still got you fooled.Coy and discreet? Well let me be succinct. Israel has been involved in atrocities. Israel has unjustly killed civilians and broke more UN resolutions than Saddam. Am I an anti-semite. No, but to ignore that side of the equation is foolish, just as ignoring the historical role of the west meddling in the ME.

Do you agree with all that bush has done. I doubt it, just as I do not agree with everything Light says about Israel. But you will still support the overall geopolitical justifications for a failed adventure, and I support the concept that Israel influenced our moves along with the oil industry, the military industrial complex, and the expansion of empire.
Among others.

The overall picture you try to paint is that Light is a Nazi. And so am I for defending the idea that Israel influences and continues to influence our policies. And having the nerve in defending Light. It seems to me he has been more right than you. Why should any of us continue to believe you and the other gung whoers

Your creditability, along with most bush defenders is out the door, so it appears as Indulto says you try to divide the opposition. And as Light just said you are the bigot here.

delayjf
03-26-2007, 07:18 PM
Not from Iraq. Most were Saudis.

So, by your logic the US should have declared war on Austria in WWII - after all Hitler was born in Austria not Germany.

Light
03-26-2007, 07:18 PM
Getting back to AIPAC,guess who has now given GW the power to go to war with Iran without Congressional approval.

If George W. Bush launches a pre-emptive war on Iran, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will bear full moral responsibility for that war.

For it was Pelosi who quietly agreed to strip out of the $100 billion funding bill for Iraq a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before launching any new war on Iran.

Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi received a smattering of boos when she bad-mouthed the war effort during a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the Democratic leadership, responding to concerns from pro-Israel lawmakers, was forced to strip from a military appropriations measure a provision meant to weaken President Bush’s ability to respond to threats from Iran.”

Pelosi gets booed by the Israeli lobby, then runs back to the Hill and gives Bush a blank check for war on Iran, because that is what the lobby demands. A real candidate for Profiles in Courage.

http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=693

PaceAdvantage
03-26-2007, 07:26 PM
Like I've been saying for quite some time now....when it comes to the Democrats....

All talky, no ballsy.....your recent account of Pelosi sort of proves this point, both figuratively and literally.

Indulto
03-26-2007, 07:27 PM
Indulto, hcaps repeated willingness to defend and stand up for light's bigotry and hatefullness is pretty revealing to me. There is no resistance, he embraces him. Its not a matter of divide and conquer - they appear to be essentially the same to me, one is coy and discreet, the other is pretty obvious. Too bad he's still got you fooled.lsbets,
Comparing Light to hcap is like comparing Bush to Lincoln.

I could have used a better lead-in to my punchline, but at least left-leaners can laugh at themselves. We both know hcap isn't endorsing Light's REPUGnant positions, he's just not distancing himself from the kernals of truth that Light manipulates to suit his agenda.

"You're either with us or agin' us" is right-reclining nonsense.:bang:

lsbets
03-26-2007, 08:05 PM
Pat Buchanan has called congress "Israeli occupied territory".Is he antisemitic too? Just because you are ignorant of how congress is run,you shouldn't mouth off and accuse people of something they're not.

Notice the difference in choice of words from Pat and from you. Only an idiot would be unable to tell the difference.

lsbets
03-26-2007, 08:07 PM
lsbets,
Comparing Light to hcap is like comparing Bush to Lincoln.


You disagree with my assesment - fine, but I think its a very valid comparision and I see little difference between the two. The major difference is Light has not posted links to as many works of fiction as Hcap has. In my book Light has more credibility than your hero hcap.

Racer98
03-26-2007, 08:13 PM
So, by your logic the US should have declared war on Austria in WWII - after all Hitler was born in Austria not Germany.

They weren't living in iraq either.

It would have been like declaring war on Spain, a neutral country, because Franco was insane. Which he was.

Indulto
03-26-2007, 09:41 PM
You disagree with my assesment - fine, but I think its a very valid comparision and I see little difference between the two. The major difference is Light has not posted links to as many works of fiction as Hcap has. In my book Light has more credibility than your hero hcap.Exactly what did you accomplish with that post besides making Light giggle. If it weren't you that posted it, some of the "right-reclining" here would have claimed it was "encouraging the enemy."

I consider both you and hcap to be heros. It's a shame neither of you can value any portion of the other's insights.

delayjf
03-27-2007, 12:22 PM
They weren't living in iraq either.

Nor were they living in or from Afghanistan. Point is their nationality is irrelevant who they align themselves with and whom they fight for is what counts. What if all the terrorist had been US citizens - they still fight for Al Qaeda.

Racer98
03-27-2007, 03:12 PM
Let's rain on the parade and say this:

The CIA did their homework and there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

JustRalph
03-27-2007, 04:24 PM
Let's rain on the parade and say this:

The CIA did their homework and there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

The same CIA that said there were WMD's.........amazing.....one day the CIA is wrong.........the next they are used to validate your points..........

If you really want to get into CIA problems..........look into the Muslim Terrorists that stayed in the same hotel as Tim Mcvey's Buddy Terry while he was abroad.......interesting guest lists and such............too bad a reporter who was reading a report on Terry Nichols was the first to recognize the names as being muslim terrorists...........not the cia

46zilzal
03-27-2007, 04:25 PM
The same CIA that said there were WMD's.........amazing.....one day the CIA is wrong.........the next they are used to validate your points..........

If you really want to get into CIA problems..........look into the Muslim Terrorists that stayed in the same hotel as Tim Mcvey's Buddy Terry while he was abroad.......interesting guest lists and such............too bad a reporter who was reading a report on Terry Nichols was the first to recognize the names as being muslim terrorists...........not the cia
Keep up the Fox viewership and you get ideas like these...

Lefty
03-27-2007, 05:29 PM
zilly, always disagreeable but never can validate a thing you say. Instead of intimating JR is wrong, where's your proof that he's wrong?

Racer98
03-27-2007, 05:29 PM
Bush came to the CIA, and said "What is the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda?" They did a report, and stated that there was no link. Their report was sent back, asking the same question. "What is the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda?" They fabricated the WMD story to justify Bush's plans. You know he was out to get Saddam.

delayjf
03-27-2007, 05:34 PM
The CIA did their homework and there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

Wrong, there was no direct link to 9-11. Saddam sponsered lots of terrorist groups to include holding "Terrorist Conventions" in Iraq. He supported Osama and publicly said so in Iraq newspapers. But you'll never get that story listening to that "bastion of truth" CNN or the "Oracle of Wisdom" moveon.org :lol: The reason they want you to move on is they don't like to discuss the truth.

Lefty
03-27-2007, 05:38 PM
If Bush was out to get Saddam, then you must admit that Saddam cooperated beautifully.

46zilzal
03-27-2007, 05:52 PM
By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004

"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq."

Let's see we are to believe the wishful thinkers over the commission report.

Racer98
03-27-2007, 05:57 PM
You forgot, that was edited when the US copies were sold, so they didn't show the unimportant stuff like that.

delayjf
03-27-2007, 05:57 PM
Define "collaborative relationship".

Racer98
03-27-2007, 05:58 PM
They had not worked together. They weren't hitler and mussolini. Seemed clear to me.

Lefty
03-27-2007, 06:04 PM
But Saddam was funding terrorists and letting them train in Iraq. Guess that's okay?

delayjf
03-27-2007, 06:26 PM
Just read the report it said no " "collaborative OPERATIONAL relationship".
Meaning they did not assist "Al Qaeda" in the planning and execution of their attacks.

delayjf
03-27-2007, 07:24 PM
Just like the US has no "collaborative OPERATIONAL relationship" with Israel.

Racer98
03-27-2007, 08:17 PM
But Saddam was funding terrorists and letting them train in Iraq. Guess that's okay?

He wasn't. He found terrorists to be a threat to his rule.

Lefty
03-27-2007, 08:49 PM
Racer, it's a known fact that he WAS giving money to the families of homicide bombers. It's a known fact that the beheader zarquari was in In Iraq.

Secretariat
03-27-2007, 09:31 PM
Interesting analysis pre-war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2284123.stm

Racer98
03-27-2007, 09:50 PM
So he was capable of doing something terrible.

With that, we shoud invade Jordan, China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Lebanon, Sudan, and several other countries who could be dangerous.

Lefty
03-27-2007, 09:51 PM
Why do you libs' on this board keep beating the old dead horse? It's a moot point as to if we shoulld be there or why we're there(take notice zilly I used the word correctly)that part is over. Get over it. We must look forward.

46zilzal
03-27-2007, 09:52 PM
Why do you libs' on this board keep beating the old dead horse? It's a moot point as to if we shoulld be there or why we're there(take notice zilly I used the word correctly)that part is over. Get over it. We must look forward.
Yes just forget about all those mistakes as if they never happened.

Racer98
03-27-2007, 09:53 PM
Okay, so let's also forget the Holocaust, 9/11, the Alamo, and any other major event. They're the past. They're over.

Show Me the Wire
03-27-2007, 10:09 PM
Yes just forget about all those mistakes as if they never happened.

It is amazing how you and some others continually miss the subject matter of cogent posts. Lefty, was pointing out that rehashing the reasons, wrong or not, will not contribute to the solution.


The content of lefty's post had nothing to do about forgetting mistakes as you said in your insipid answer.

46zilzal
03-27-2007, 10:33 PM
It is amazing how you and some others continually miss the subject matter of cogent posts. Lefty, was pointing out that rehashing the reasons, wrong or not, will not contribute to the solution.


The content of lefty's post had nothing to do about forgetting mistakes as you said in your insipid answer.
CONTINUTING the mistake is the rational way to go? ridiculous.

It would be like my discovering I had prescribed the wrong medicine and having the patient continue to take that med once I realized I had made a error. That, like this, would be criminal.

Lefty
03-27-2007, 10:46 PM
racer, are you really comparing the holocaust to the war in Iraq? Not even close to being analogous. You're making us equivilent of Nazis when we deposed a dictater who was torturing and killing his own people. Better rethink it.
and zilly, you said we shouldn't continue what you call a mstk. What do you think will happen if we pull out?

Lefty
03-27-2007, 10:51 PM
Yes just forget about all those mistakes as if they never happened.
If they were mstks, doesn't do any good to whine about them. I used to have a Real Estate partner than whenever we had a problem, would fret, worry and wring his hands. I looked for and found solutions.
If we leave Iraq prematurely, NOW THAT, would be a mstk. What's your solution zilly?

Show Me the Wire
03-28-2007, 12:01 AM
CONTINUTING the mistake is the rational way to go? ridiculous.

It would be like my discovering I had prescribed the wrong medicine and having the patient continue to take that med once I realized I had made a error. That, like this, would be criminal.

No way is a solution (end to the hostilities) in Iraq analogous to your example. Some mistakes, as you put it, are easier to correct than others.

Talk about someone seeing everything in black and white.

Racer98
03-28-2007, 03:55 PM
Hey, they didn't follow us home in vietnam when we pulled out. In fact, our relations with the 'nam are now good. And they were supposed to go fight us on our shores. Right.

46zilzal
03-28-2007, 04:09 PM
. What's your solution zilly?
Let's send YOU to fight

Tom
03-28-2007, 04:46 PM
Hey, they didn't follow us home in vietnam when we pulled out. In fact, our relations with the 'nam are now good. And they were supposed to go fight us on our shores. Right.There was a bloodbath inthe area after we left. A massive bloodbath.

Tom
03-28-2007, 04:47 PM
CONTINUTING the mistake is the rational way to go? ridiculous.

It would be like my discovering I had prescribed the wrong medicine and having the patient continue to take that med once I realized I had made a error. That, like this, would be criminal.

No, you prescribe x amoujnt of medicine and it doens't work, so you up it to 2x dosage. A "surge" of meds, so to speak.

46zilzal
03-28-2007, 05:26 PM
No, you prescribe x amoujnt of medicine and it doens't work, so you up it to 2x dosage. A "surge" of meds, so to speak.
That makes sense with your logic. Wrong to a certain degree, double the wrongness....Understandable in that logic line.

Light
03-28-2007, 05:37 PM
we deposed a dictater who was torturing and killing his own people.


At what price? The sad fact is things are MUCH worse for Iraqi's today than with Saddam. It is now commonplace for an Iraqi who goes to work or the market to wish his family goodbye in the sense he or she will never come back because the streets are that dangerous.If that is progress,give me Saddam.

delayjf
03-28-2007, 06:24 PM
It would be like my discovering I had prescribed the wrong medicine and having the patient continue to take that med once I realized I had made a error. That, like this, would be criminal.

Put another way: If you accidentlly cut off the wrong leg in an operation - do you just walk away from the table or do you cut off the bad leg?

The sad fact is things are MUCH worse for Iraqi's today than with Saddam

Tell that to the Kurds.

46zilzal
03-28-2007, 06:30 PM
Put another way: If you accidentlly cut off the wrong leg in an operation - do you just walk away from the table or do you cut off the bad leg?




That would be un-correctable

Racer98
03-28-2007, 07:19 PM
Humans have this awful thing called pride. Half the time if we do something wrong, we continue to do it, just because we are too proud to admit we're idiots.


And Tom, Pol Pot was a whole different story. His genocide was in no way related to Vietnam.

And cutting off the wrong leg is called malpractice. You can't sue Bush for Mal-war.

Lefty
03-28-2007, 08:10 PM
once again zilly, you have no cogent answers. You just have the leftwing mantra. I would go there and fight but not much call for 70 yr olds. But when they come to my door, I assure you i will. And with people like you calling for defeat in Iraq, they will be here if you libs succeed. Your answer really is, let's get out of Iraq and hope they will leave us alone. Pretty damn naive.

Show Me the Wire
03-28-2007, 08:48 PM
Hey, they didn't follow us home in vietnam when we pulled out. In fact, our relations with the 'nam are now good. And they were supposed to go fight us on our shores. Right.

And Tom, Pol Pot was a whole different story. His genocide was in no way related to Vietnam.


Your making comparisons like the above to the Iraq conflict results in this question. Are you really sure you are smarter than a 5th Grader?

Indulto
03-28-2007, 08:52 PM
Your making comparisons like the above to the Iraq conflict results in this question. Are you really sure you are smarter than a 5th Grader?SMTW,
You've made a lot of progress. Few things work better than a little trailer-bashing. :D

You're welcome. ;)

Show Me the Wire
03-28-2007, 09:00 PM
Learned from you, indulgent one.

PaceAdvantage
03-29-2007, 01:22 AM
Hey, they didn't follow us home in vietnam when we pulled out. In fact, our relations with the 'nam are now good. And they were supposed to go fight us on our shores. Right.

Holy Shit man. Now I know you're putting us on.

Secretariat
03-29-2007, 02:32 PM
Holy Shit man. Now I know you're putting us on.

I don't think Racer's comparision is off at all.

The communists didn't follow us home from Nam. The refrain back then was etiher we fight them over there, or we'll be fighting them on the shores of California. It was a bogus slogan to illicit fear in the populace and it succeeded.

As to business relations with commie North Vietnam, GW has asserted once more that it's ok to do business with commies like Nam if the labor is cheap enough. Little did some vets know at the time over there, that their jobs may one day be exported to North Vietnam so that they would have the opportunity to go into a Walmart and buy goods from the commie country they were supposedly liberating..,

The Bush foreign policy strikes (out) again.

delayjf
03-29-2007, 06:50 PM
Vietnam never demonstrated any intention to strike the US. But we have been hit by Terrorist organizations many times in the past. Our presense in Iraq gives the US a strategic presence to fight Global terrorism.

10 years from now when they unclassify documents showing that W policies saved your hometown or your families hometown from a dirty bomb manufactored in Libya, you'll be saying " I supported Bush back then ... what a visionary"

Secretariat
03-29-2007, 07:02 PM
Vietnam never demonstrated any intention to strike the US. But we have been hit by Terrorist organizations many times in the past. Our presense in Iraq gives the US a strategic presence to fight Global terrorism.

10 years from now when they unclassify documents showing that W policies saved your hometown or your families hometown from a dirty bomb manufactored in Libya, you'll be saying " I supported Bush back then ... what a visionary"

Whoa. Are you saying that the Vietnamese were incapable of hijacking a couple of planes with boxcutters? THey actually had more miltiary capabiltiy than Al Qaeda.

Sure we've been hit by terrorist organizations - even homebred ones like McVeigh But not that frequently and not with military might.

Our presence in Iraq has done nothing but exacerbated terrorism worldwide as Colin Powell announced and realized before he left this administration.

Please, let's unclassify the documents now that reveal that. Now that Libya has denounced terrorism there shoudl be no need to keep a document like that classified.

delayjf
03-29-2007, 07:45 PM
No, I'm not saying they couldn't, I'm saying they didn't

9/11 was on par with Pearl Harbor. What if they'd have flown those planes into Yankee stadium during a game would 10-20,000 deaths then motivate you. If not, then how much are you willing to take? Your more patient than I, I've had enough. I'd rather we duke it out with them and keep them running in the mountain and streets of Afganistan and Iraq then sit at home and wait to be attacked, yet again.

Powells opinions not withstanding we have not been hit since and potential attacks have been averted.

I have no idea if your hometown was targeted or not, but what it??

46zilzal
03-29-2007, 07:53 PM
Only problem was that NONE of them were from Iraq. All Saudi's and Egyptians.

Secretariat
03-29-2007, 08:44 PM
NPowells opinions not withstanding we have not been hit since and potential attacks have been averted.


What does that have to do with Iraq? We haven't been hit by guys with boxcutters due to Homeland Security vigilance and good airport screening.

Last I heard they weren't flying commercial airliners directly to the US from Baghdad.

JustRalph
03-29-2007, 10:53 PM
classified docs stay classified at least 22 years, last I read. Unless they are specifically "unclassified on request"

You wont' see anything for a while..............

Tom
03-29-2007, 11:28 PM
Only problem was that NONE of them were from Iraq. All Saudi's and Egyptians....operating out of Afghansitan. What's your point?

Racer98
03-30-2007, 05:47 PM
Afghanistan was the right choice. Iraq? Nothing worse. Why oh why didn't we go after Bin Laden? He couldn't move. He was hooked up to a dialysis machine draining his kidneys. We couldn't catch a virtual statue? He got away. How rediculous. Why? Because we didn't try. We set our main force aside for Iraq.

I personally think we shouldn't have invaded anyone. Give them a rocket attack by some Jets streaking through and dropping a few bombs. Well, okay, a lot of bombs. Until the confirmed death toll passes the 9/11 mark. That's just me.

And no, Sec, they don't.

JustRalph
04-20-2007, 10:27 AM
http://ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon022007.gif

delayjf
04-20-2007, 11:36 AM
At least they didn't use uniformed military, active duty or veterans, as props in their political events today.

Of course you wouldn't, the left hates the military. Personally I don't know many who would volunteer to stand behind Hillary.