Time pegs the rutabaga to a "T"

[46zilzal]

An Administration's Epic Collapse

By Joe Klein / Time
The three big Bush stories of 2007--the decision to "surge" in Iraq, the scandalous
treatment of wounded veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the
firing of eight U.S. Attorneys for tawdry political reasons--precisely illuminate the
three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history:
arrogance (the surge), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys).

General David Petraeus has repeatedly said, "A military solution to Iraq is not possible."
Translation: This thing fails unless there is a political deal among the Shi'ites, Sunnis
and Kurds. There is no such deal on the horizon, largely because of the President's
aversion to talking to people he doesn't like.

When Bush came to office--installed by the Supreme Court after receiving fewer votes
than Al Gore--I speculated that the new President would have to govern in a
bipartisan manner to be successful. He chose the opposite path, and his
hyper-partisanship has proved to be a travesty of governance and a comprehensive
failure. I've tried to be respectful of the man and the office, but the three defining
sins of the Bush Administration--arrogance, incompetence, cynicism--are
congenital: they're part of his personality. They're not likely to change. And
it is increasingly difficult to imagine yet another two years of slow bleed with
a leader so clearly unfit to lead.

[46zilzal]

Cheney reasserts al-Qaida-Saddam connection

Vice president’s words come as latest Pentagon report again dismisses link

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida. Others in al-Qaida planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

DICK needs to invoke this phrase:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
-- Joseph Goebbels

[JustRalph]

I suggest you look up Joe Klein............ he is a joke. He was the "anonymous" writer of the Clinton tribute movie "primary colors" which tells you which camp he is in............

[46zilzal]

I suggest you look up Joe Klein............ he is a joke. He was the "anonymous" writer of the Clinton tribute movie "primary colors" which tells you which camp he is in............
That was anything but a tribute.

[bigmack]

Given the ad nauseum frequency that Zilly churns this stuff out, how bout an old fashioned thread jackin'?

Q: If Zilly were in charge, what vegetable or general food product would he be called by the masses?

I'd have to guess Kuka, as it's phonically akin to Kooky.

[46zilzal]

Given the ad nauseum frequency that Zilly churns this stuff out, how bout an old fashioned thread jackin'?

Yes good old Time and the AP are of course, unreliable sources to those wearing blinkers.

[Tom]

Reporting news and rendering opinions are not the same thing, you pouting pumpkin, you! :lol:

[Lefty]

zilly, I have you pegged to a "T" too. A pseudo intellectual sitting in an "Ivory Tower" naive enough to blve if you talk nice to rattlesnakes they won't bite.

[Show Me the Wire]

Given the ad nauseum frequency that Zilly churns this stuff out, how bout an old fashioned thread jackin'?

Q: If Zilly were in charge, what vegetable or general food product would he be called by the masses?

I'd have to guess Kuka, as it's phonically akin to Kooky.

Turnip, as just fell off the turnip truck.

[Lefty]

Given the ad nauseum frequency that Zilly churns this stuff out, how bout an old fashioned thread jackin'?

Q: If Zilly were in charge, what vegetable or general food product would he be called by the masses?

I'd have to guess Kuka, as it's phonically akin to Kooky.
Skunk Cabbage. It has no value whatsoever.

[Greyfox]

Q: If Zilly were in charge, what vegetable or general food product would he be called by the masses?



agabatur - (n) - a rare edible carefully thought out preparation of thoughtful
delights. Unfortunately, not popular to many tastes, but absolutely necessary for sustenance of life.

[bigmack]

Reporting news and rendering opinions are not the same thing, you pouting pumpkin, you! :lol:
Pouting pumpkin, with the ajoining image is, how should I say: :lol::lol::lol:

[Secretariat]

46,

Great post of Klein's article. who is certainly no liberal's friend. Hang in there 46, when they resort to the name calling rather than the content of the article you know they've struggling.

[Tom]

You keep thinking that, Sec......along with Global Warming, Santa Clause, and the Easter bunny. Childhood is something to be enjoyed! :jump:

[Lefty]

sec, the content of the article is his opinion, not fact. You guys keep trying to pass off opinion for facts.

[Boris]

46,

when they resort to the name calling


Did you catch the title of thread Sec?


From the dumbass link:

"When Bush came to office--installed by the Supreme Court after receiving fewer votes than Al Gore--I speculated that the new President would have to govern in a bipartisan manner to be successful."

This is what it always goes back to. Installed by the Supreme Court - Fewer Votes than Pork Chop Gore. Klein is an idiot. The Supreme Court can't install a president, presidents can be elected without the most votes, and Democrats do not allow any bipartisan anything.

[Secretariat]

Did you catch the title of thread Sec?


From the dumbass link:

"When Bush came to office--installed by the Supreme Court after receiving fewer votes than Al Gore--I speculated that the new President would have to govern in a bipartisan manner to be successful."

This is what it always goes back to. Installed by the Supreme Court - Fewer Votes than Pork Chop Gore. Klein is an idiot. The Supreme Court can't install a president, presidents can be elected without the most votes, and Democrats do not allow any bipartisan anything.

I'm not going to rehash the 2000 election except to say that in fact the Supreme Court did install him. I agree on one thing Klein is an idiot who generally tends to the right of center , but he is certainly right on that issue.

[Tom]

Plaese point in the SC descision the language that installs him. Your loose use of the facts is as old as the whining.
If you were a veggy, it would be a horseradish - offensive to most and hard to swallow. :lol:

[bigmack]

Hang in there 46, when they resort to the name calling rather than the content of the article you know they've struggling.
Sec,

Buoying up the spirits of Zilly, who has drilled this rutabaga name calling into the ground, by saying others are "resorting" to name calling is a biggie size of irony.

[Tom]

Oh Big One, I would not use name calling at all, but on the internet, I can't use sticks or stones! :eek:

[kenwoodallpromos]

" I've tried to be respectful of the man and the office"
You joined August 2004. Beginning with the 1st "rutabaga" post in Jan 2005, you referred to Bush as "rutabaga" 187 times according to the PA search function.
Which day were you respectful?

[PaceAdvantage]

Hang in there 46, when they resort to the name calling rather than the content of the article you know they've struggling.

How incredibly touching. When is the movie coming out?

[Tom]

So according to SEc, 46 has been struggling since Day1, becasue he calls Bush names on a daily basis. :lol:


Originally Posted by Secretariat
Hang in there 46, when they resort to the name calling rather than the content of the article you know they've struggling.

[hcap]

Ok, maybe this explains why 46 chose to compare rutabagas to bush....
BTW, I can not vouch for the accuracy of this website.

http://members.tripod.com/~rutabagas/
The Advanced Rutabaga Studies Institute
Forest Grove, Oregon - Rutabaga Capital of the World Since 1951


DATELINE January 12, 2007: As the result of experiments performed by Italian graduate students in Pisa last October, geophysicists are investigating the possibility that the extreme density of ordinary rutabagas is sufficient to confer upon them a measurable gravitational force. In a repetition of Galileo's apocryphal experiment, students from the University of Pisa simultaneously released rutabagas and spheres of platinum-iridium alloy from the top of the famous Campanile ("Leaning Tower of Pisa"). Amazingly, the rutabagas landed 0.00004859 (4.859x10-5) milliseconds before the spheres in apparent defiance of Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation.

Stunned geophysicists speculate that the gravitational attraction between the rutabagas and the earth was sufficent to accelerate their fall beyond the expected 9.80665 meters/second2. These findings have profound implications for gravitational theory in such areas as the Bouguer anomaly, gravity lenses, gauge bosons, the existence of the graviton and the general theory of relativity. :lol: :lol:

"DISCLAIMER: Any similarity between the information or claims
presented by this site and social, scientific, culinary, literary, cultural, historical,botanical, artistic and technological reality is purely coincidental.

[GaryG]

Hcap.....you definitely need more to do.

[PaceAdvantage]

The handbook these guys use needs a few new plays. They've even resorted to copying my trademark "All Talky, No Ballsy"

[46zilzal]

From the start, it has been obvious that personal motives have skewed the President's judgment about the war. Saddam tried to kill his dad; his dad didn't try hard enough to kill Saddam. There was payback to be had. But never was Bush's adolescent petulance more obvious than in his decision to ignore the Baker-Hamilton report and move in the exact opposite direction: adding troops and employing counterinsurgency tactics inappropriate to the situation on the ground. "There was no way he was going to accept [its findings] once the press began to portray the report as Daddy's friends coming to the rescue," a member of the Baker-Hamilton commission told me. As with Bush's invasion of Iraq, the decision to surge was made unilaterally, without adequate respect for history or military doctrine. Iraq was invaded with insufficient troops and planning; the surge was attempted with too few troops (especially non-Kurdish, Arabic-speaking Iraqis), a purposely misleading time line ("progress" by September) and, most important, the absence of a reliable Iraqi government.


Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush
By RON SUSKIND
Kevin LaMarque/Reuters


Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.

''Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. . . .

''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you can't run the world on faith.''

[Lefty]

Once again you post opinion and speculation. I guess all the dems that said
saddam needed to be dealt with were wanting to avenge the elder Bush also.

[46zilzal]

Once again you post opinion and speculation. I guess all the dems that said
saddam needed to be dealt with were wanting to avenge the elder Bush also.
Too bad logic is lost on you.

[Lefty]

You say things that really don't mean anything. The dems were all saying that Saddam was dangerous. Kerry, Hillary and all the rest. You can't pass off speculation as logic.

[Tom]

The Iraq surrender Group's report was an embarrasment o all who had a hand in writting it. It was worthy of a report to the Emporer of Japan in 1945,
To present THAT piece of garrbage to a President of the United States was preposterous. Only fools would ever think you could negotiate with terroists.....like Bin Losi.

Bush's mistake was not putting 500,000 in place from Day 1 and making sure there was no Day 2.

[46zilzal]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/08/iraq.main/index.html

[Greyfox]

I had no use for Saddam Hussein. None.
I give him credit though for one thing.
Rightly or wrongly, his regime was able to keep hostilities
between these various factions to a minimum.
What did he do that we aren't?

[46zilzal]

Novak: Bush Out of Touch With His Own Party
March 26, 2007

Bob Novak writes in The Washington Post that in fifty years, he has never seen a president so out of touch with his own party.

With nearly two years remaining in his presidency, George W. Bush is alone. In half a century, I have not seen a president so isolated from his own party in Congress -- not Jimmy Carter, not even Richard Nixon as he faced impeachment.

But not many Republican lawmakers would speak up for Gonzales even if they were sure Bush would stick with him. He is the least popular Cabinet member on Capitol Hill, even more disliked than Rumsfeld was. The word most often used by Republicans to describe the management of the Justice Department under Gonzales is "incompetent."

[Lefty]

Grey, for one thing he had no problem tortuing an executing his own people; even killing them by the thousands with the WMD's that the dems keep saying he didn't have.

zilly, this Pres has had more on his plate like no other pres since FDR and Truman. He has had to deal with worlwide terrorism and has done it at the detriment to his popularity. He has kep the economy strong during terrible times and gets not one iota of credit fome our "pravda like" media. Not to mention haters like you. Unlike Clinton this man concerned about the country and not his self. Great men often stand alone.

[46zilzal]

Just where are those WMD's? I was just reading about the ENORMOUS (10 million $$$$) that David Kay had to promote the finding of them and had NO takers. Wonder why?

[Lefty]

zilly, nobody knows and it's a concern or should be. But surely you don't deny he had em and used em, do you?

[46zilzal]

zilly, nobody knows and it's a concern or should be. But surely you don't deny he had em and used em, do you?
I will give you the well documented chemical episodes, nothing else.

[Tom]

I had no use for Saddam Hussein. None.
I give him credit though for one thing.
Rightly or wrongly, his regime was able to keep hostilities
between these various factions to a minimum.
What did he do that we aren't?

Murder, torture, terror. Typical dictator stuff - killed tens of thousands of his own people with gas. You know, stuff 46 would call minor.

[Tom]

I will give you the well documented chemical episodes, nothing else.

Can you not make the same arguement that Hitler wasn't so bad, other than that nasty Jewish business with the gas and all.

[46zilzal]

Can you not make the same arguement that Hitler wasn't so bad, other than that nasty Jewish business with the gas and all.
That fellow aggressively expanded overt warfare all over Europe. No comparison. not even close.

[Show Me the Wire]

Tsk. tsk, zilzal (Terry?) he tried, but was stopped quickly. Remember Kuwait?

In fact a very valid comparison and lesson about the different results of appeasement and confrontation.

[Tom]

And SMTW says the secret word.
Hitler would have been refered to as "that fellow" today had it not been for the Nazi Study Group headed up by a Pelosi ancestor. You negotioate, they win. No one EVER negotiated peace, Ever.
Today, the muslem animals drove a trcuk full of explosives up to a hospital and detonated them. How are you supposed to negotiate with this typeof vermin?

[hcap]

Patrick J. Buchanan

October 21 2002

...Hitler conquered all of Europe from the Arctic to the Aegean and from the Atlantic to Stalingrad. And Saddam?

He invaded Kuwait, a sandbox half the size of Denmark, and got tossed out after a 100-hour ground war. His country has been overflown 40,000 times by U.S. and British planes, and he has not been able to shoot a single plane down. He has no navy, a fourth-rate air force, and a shrunken, demoralized army. His economy is not 1 percent of ours.

.................................................. ....................................

Seumas Milne
Thursday February 13, 2003
The Guardian

The parallel between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Nazi Germany is transparently ridiculous. Germany by the 1930s had won and lost a colonial empire stretching from Tanganyika to Micronesia; it had led the world in medicine and in chemical production; it had competed with the other Big Powers for world dominion. It was an imperialist country. In the late 1930s, Hitler's Germany was the world's second largest industrial economy and commanded its most powerful military machine. It openly espoused an ideology of territorial expansion, had annexed the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia in rapid succession and posed a direct threat to its neighbours. It would go on to enslave most of Europe and carry out an industrial genocide unparallelled in human history.

Iraq is, by contrast, a broken-backed developing country, with a single commodity economy and a devastated infrastructure, which doesn't even control all its own territory and has posed no credible threat to its neighbours, let alone Britain or the US, for more than a decade. Whatever residual chemical or biological weapons Iraq may retain, they are clearly no deterrent, its armed forces have been massively weakened and face the most powerful military force in history - Iraq's military spending is estimated to be about one per cent of the US's $380bn budget. The attempt to equate the Iraqis' horrific gas attacks on Kurds and Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war with the Nazi holocaust is particularly grotesque - a better analogy would be the British gassing of Iraqi Kurds in the 20s or the US use of chemical weapons in Vietnam.

Appeasement is in any case a misnomer for what was an attempt by rightwing governments in Britain and France in the 1930s to befriend Germany and accommodate Nazi expansion. There was certainly a widespread yearning for peace in the aftermath of the butchery of the first world war. But the appeasers were something else: effectively a pro-German fifth column at the heart of the conservative elite, who warmed to Hitler's militant anti-communism and sought to encourage him to turn on the Soviet Union. Chamberlain even hoped for an alliance with Nazi Germany. Fascist sympathies were rampant throughout the establishment, from Edward VIII to newspapers like the Mail which now denounce opponents of war on Iraq as traitors - while mavericks like Churchill and what would now be called the hard left resisted the Munich sellout. In none of this is there the remotest analogy with current efforts to prevent an unprovoked attack on sanctions-drained Iraq. And of course none of the opponents of appeasement in the 1930s ever argued for pre-emptive war on Nazi Germany, but for deterrence and self-defence.

Just as absurd, against the background of the European-US standoff, is the increasingly strident insistence of the war party that it was the US which saved Europe from Nazi tyranny in the 1940s. It isn't necessary in any way to minimise the heroism of US soldiers to balk at such a retrospective reworking of the facts. Quite what the Russians - who lost perhaps 27 million people in the second world war (compared with 135,576 US deaths in Europe), bore the brunt of the European fighting and, in Churchill's words, "tore the guts out of the Nazi war machine" - are supposed to make of this fable is anyone's guess. Particularly when Russia - along with France, Germany and China - is opposing the current war drive and is presumably therefore regarded by war supporters as ranked among the appeasers.

The idea that those opposed to US aggression against Iraq can be compared to the appeasers of the 1930s is simply risible. But if appeasement - unlike the form it took in the 1930s - is regarded as an attempt to pacify a powerful and potentially dangerous power, it sounds far more like the behaviour of Tony Blair's government towards the Bush administration. Of course Bush's America cannot be compared with Nazi Germany - it is far more in the traditional imperial mould. But Britain's apparent attempt to steer the US away from unilateral action, if that is what it has been, shows every sign of failing. Instead, Blair has ended up lining up behind a hard-right US republican administration with the political heirs of Mussolini and Franco in the teeth of British and global opinion - and helped to fracture the US-dominated post-1991 global order into the bargain.

[46zilzal]

Tsk. tsk, zilzal (Terry?) he tried, but was stopped quickly. Remember Kuwait?

In fact a very valid comparison and lesson about the different results of appeasement and confrontation.
Terry is another fellow.

[Tom]

Who did Terry invade?

[Greyfox]

Who did Terry invade?

The Terrytories.

[kenwoodallpromos]

That fellow aggressively expanded overt warfare all over Europe. No comparison. not even close.
____________________________
Recap of "wars" since 1960, from that righty, PBS.
"http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/military/etc/cron.html"
Clinton and Kennedy liked to invade countries who we thoughht could not beats us, not just the Repubs!LOL!!

[46zilzal]

During his gubernatorial days in Texas, George W let slip a one-sentence thought that unintentionally gave us a peek
into his political soul. In hindsight, it should've been loudly broadcast all across our land so people could've absorbed
it, contemplated its portent? and roundly rejected the guy's bid for the presidency. On May 21, 1999, reacting to some satirical criticism of him, Bush snapped: "There ought to be limits to freedom."

What Bush press flack Tony Snow said the day the total number of American dead reached 2,500: "It's a number"

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our
country and our people, and neither do we."
-George W., August 2004

Number of White House officials and cabinet members who have any of their immediate family in Bush's war: 0

"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting
thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel
like I owe anybody an explanation."
George W., August, 2002.

Number of signing statements issued by Bush as of July 2006: more than 800 (This is more than the combined total of all 42 previous presidents.)

A few examples of congressionally passed laws he has effectively annulled through these extralegal signing statements:

* a ban against torture of prisoners by the U.S. military

* a requirement that the FBI periodically report to Congress on how it is using the Patriot Act to search our
homes and secretly seize people's private papers

* a ban against storage in military databases of intelligence about Americans that was obtained illegally

* a directive for the executive branch to transmit scientific information to Congress "uncensored and without
delay" when requested

Provision of the Constitution clearly stating that Congress alone has the power "to make all laws": Article 1, Section 8

Provision of the Constitution clearly stating that the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed":

Name That Guy!

In 1966, a young Republican congressman stood against his party's elders to cosponsor the original Freedom of
Information Act, valiantly declaring that public records "are public property." He said that FOIA "will make it
considerably more difficult for secrecy-minded bureaucrats to decide arbitrarily that the people should be
denied access to information on the conduct of government."

Who was that virtuous lawmaker? Donald Rumsfeld!

Only eight years later, Gerald Ford's chief of staff strongly urged him to veto the continuation of FOIA. Who was
that dastardly staffer? Donald Rumsfeld!

Who is now one of the chief "secrecy-minded bureaucrats" who routinely violates OIA's principles? Right, him
again!

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14665.htm

[Lefty]

zilly, your hatred is tiresome and boring. You don't even live in this country.
Yawn...

[46zilzal]

zilly, your hatred is tiresome and boring. You don't even live in this country.
Yawn...
yes that repeated and overt incompetence could be a bit boring if it weren't so dangerous.

[Show Me the Wire]

Did ljb ever post the end result about his non-political puppy?

[Lefty]

yes that repeated and overt incompetence could be a bit boring if it weren't so dangerous.
Only dangerous to terrorism and socialism.

[46zilzal]

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history

Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties -- Buchanan, Andrew Johnson,
Hoover and now Bush -- have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation
worse off. In each case, different factors contributed to the failure: disastrous domestic
policies, foreign-policy blunders and military setbacks, executive misconduct, crises of
credibility and public trust. Bush, however, is one of the rarities in presidential history:
He has not only stumbled badly in every one of these key areas, he has also displayed
a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence
to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing
any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities. Repeatedly, Bush has undone himself,
a failing revealed in each major area of presidential performance.

[46zilzal]

" I've tried to be respectful of the man and the office"
You joined August 2004. Beginning with the 1st "rutabaga" post in Jan 2005, you referred to Bush as "rutabaga" 187 times according to the PA search function.
Which day were you respectful?
You are quoting an article I quoted. I have NEVER been the least bit respectful of the brain stem that governs.

You might be able to quote this one too:
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2006/12/bush-administration-out-of-touch-with.html

The Republican party used to be the party of small government, but Bushy boy has turned
it into one of the most bloated and intrusive (not to mention most expensive) bureaucracies
in the history of the Western world. The result has been an unwinnable “war on terror,”
an insane invasion of Iraq, the spectacle of the greatest democracy in the world engaging
in torture of its detainees, blatant disrespect for individual privacy and due process at
home, rampant stupidity masquerading as security checks at airports, and now millions
of dollars spent to tell adults not to engage in the most natural act in the world, after eating.
The political surge of the Christian right has suffered a serious setback with the November
elections, but is it 2008 already?

[Lefty]

zilly, if you and the writer of the article blve the war on terror is unwinnable then you better just cut off your heads now. It's only unwinnable to the gutless appeasers. You can talk nice all you like to a rattlesnake but it will still bite you.
It's sickening to read about torturing detainees and nobody on the left writes a word about the torture the enemy engages in or the torture the Iranians put the brits through. You guys constantly cricize the U.S. and excuse the enemy. And it's almost humorous to read and hear the left complain about spending. It's just continuing and funding the prgms the left started to begin with. All attempts to fix and modernize prgms like S.S. receive enormous resistance from the left, so don't complain about spending.

[Lefty]

The article is called rationally speaking. THat's a joke in itself. And it pooh pohs abstinence when the greatest cause to poverty in this country is having babies out of wedlock and the man runs away to plant his "seed" elsewhere and the single mother struggles. The most poverty stricken households in this country are one parent households. Yet you leftists always complaining about poverty in this country and the champion what causes most of it. Nothin rational about you guys.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm so bored with all of this.

When will the Democrats grow some balls and oust Bush? Are they going to wait until inauguration day 2009?

Ooops...that's right....they can't oust him, for he has done nothing to justify impeachment....silly me....I almost bought into this hype.

I mean, we got ol' Billy Boy after he lied about playing with cigars and getting some hummers, yet Bush is the Teflon POTUS. You democrats....all talky, no ballsy (and for you THIEFS out there, dat dere phrase is COPYRIGHTED....don't steal it from me again!)

[Lefty]

PA, maybe the Dems should try MIRACLE GRO.

[kenwoodallpromos]

You are quoting an article I quoted. I have NEVER been the least bit respectful of the brain stem that governs.
_______
Please excuse me for the 5 months' credit I gave you from Aug to Jan!!
Don't forget Repub Lincoln suspending Habeas corpus during the Civil War!
And Kennedy and Clinton violating the (cigar) import ban of Cuber!

[delayjf]

Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

What the defense department said was that they did not cooperate with Al Qaeda on 9/11. That is not what Cheney said. He said that Al Qaeda was present in Iraq prior to the 03 Iraq invasion.

[Secretariat]

What the defense department said was that they did not cooperate with Al Qaeda on 9/11. That is not what Cheney said. He said that Al Qaeda was present in Iraq prior to the 03 Iraq invasion.

What does that mean? Al queda was present in this country before 911. Did they pose a relationship with Iraq that offered an imminet or even grave threat to the US as we were told? Of course not. Did Mohammad Atta meet in Prague with Iraqi officials as Cheney kept repeating publicly on TV as fact despite the CIA's denial?

The bottom line is you are still trying to defend Cheney's manipulations. Trying to give the illusion that Saddam Hussein and al queda had a working relationship that somehow threatened the US in a grave and imminent way. It was simply false, but as Wolfowitz stated that WMD's were the only thing everyone could agree upon as a selling point to the US public.

This has been talked about here ad nauseum. It's painful to even rehash it. It's unbelievable some still buy into it despite the recantations. Even the Bush admisntration (beyond Cheney) doesn't sell this story anymore.

Let me ask you something. What if you were told that there were multiple shipments of anthrax, botulinum toxin, gangrene, West Nile virus, and Dengue fever specimens that were smuggled to Iraq pre-War? To a madman named Hussein. Wouldn't you want these people prosecuted? Wouldn't it be in the interests of the US to capture and try these people giving a madman access to chemical and biological weaponry? Couldn't this destabilzie the region, even possibly offer a grave threat to the US especially since Hussein was alleged to support terrorism?

Well, between 1985 and 1988, the nonprofit American Type Culture Collection made 11 shipments to Iraq that included anthrax, botulinum toxin and gangrene. All shipments were government-approved.

Between January 1980 and October 1993, the federal Centers for Disease Control shipped a variety of toxic specimens to Iraq, including West Nile virus and Dengue fever.

The U.S. Commerce Department and CDC provided lists of these shipments.

.....

Enough of this nonsense. The Iraq War was was not about an al Queda relationship to Hussein or even fundamentally about WMD's, or they wouldn't have had to fabricate so much baloney to the public and the UN. WMDs simply scared the crap out of the American public, and it made people react emotionally rather than rationally. The Iraq War was about something else.

Personally, to me it is about three things. 1) The security of Israel 2) Oil profits. 3) Personal revenge

Bush succeeded on two of the three. Oil profits and personal revenge. The third has probably made Israel's security situation more threatened as the smoothness of an occupied democracy is meeting internal resistance, and strengthened Shia Iran's hand while weakening our own balance of power in the region.

Becasue if the Iraq War was about WMD's, then it was a dramatic failure.

[delayjf]

What does that mean? Al Qaeda was present in this country before 911.
What it means is your insinuation that Cheney was lying was wrong. He simply stated that Al Qaeda was in Iraq pre-war. You’re the one who took his statement and attempted to turn it into Cheney said Al Qaeda was behind 9/11.

Trying to give the illusion that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had a working relationship
What is your definition of a working relationship?? What I’ve said and what I’ve shown is that Iraq and Al Qaeda had a LOGISTICAL relationship, which means they supported with training centers, funding, etc. I never said (nor did Cheney) that they had an OPERATIONAL relationship, which means they (the Iraqis participated in 9/11).

What if you were told that there were multiple shipments of anthrax, botulinum toxin, gangrene, West Nile virus, and Dengue fever specimens that were smuggled to Iraq pre-War?

I have never agreed with US policy that supported Saddams bio/chem. Program. I’m afraid I can’t speak intelligently about bio samples the US exports globally. I do know that they have a duel use in developing vaccinations, so I wonder how many other countries the US routinely exports the same bio samples to. Your claim that we exported these samples as late as 1993 (Post 1st Gulf War) makes me question just how significant those exports really are. As horrible as your list above sounds, Bio weapons were never used. If they were developed and manufactured, did the UN account for them; If not then by your own admission Iraq had in its possession WMD’s

Bush succeeded on two of the three. Oil profits and personal revenge.
If you really believe that, then you must admit, not bad for a rutabaga. ;)

[Tom]

Good reply, Jeff.
You took the chaos out of Sec's shell game. :lol:

[Secretariat]

What it means is your insinuation that Cheney was lying was wrong. He simply stated that Al Qaeda was in Iraq pre-war. You’re the one who took his statement and attempted to turn it into Cheney said Al Qaeda was behind 9/11.


What is your definition of a working relationship?? What I’ve said and what I’ve shown is that Iraq and Al Qaeda had a LOGISTICAL relationship, which means they supported with training centers, funding, etc. I never said (nor did Cheney) that they had an OPERATIONAL relationship, which means they (the Iraqis participated in 9/11).

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/06/cheney-source-recanted/



As horrible as your list above sounds, Bio weapons were never used.

Not according to Kurds or Iranians.


If they were developed and manufactured, did the UN account for them; If not then by your own admission Iraq had in its possession WMD’s

Well, you could say that since we gave them to them. not nuclear weapons, but chemical and biological weapons that were accoutned for in the years after the First Gulf War and supposedly destroyed.


If you really believe that, then you must admit, not bad for a rutabaga. ;)

I do beleive that, and yes, 2 out of 3 for Bush in terms of his goals. Good for him, and his cronies, but at what a cost for our country.

[Lefty]

Once again you criticize the pres. and excuse saddam and the terrorists. You blve that if we hadn't invaded Iraq everything would just be peaceful and nice... a virtual liberal utopia...

[delayjf]

Not according to Kurds or Iranians.

Can you provide a link that sites Bio weapons usage - I know they used Chemical but have not found anything that claims bio weapons were used.
WiKi says they built up their stock pile but that none were used.

[Secretariat]

Can you provide a link that sites Bio weapons usage - I know they used Chemical but have not found anything that claims bio weapons were used.
WiKi says they built up their stock pile but that none were used.

I stand corrected. They only used chemical weapons, not biological.

General Hussein Kamal Hassan who defected to the US however stated they had the capability to strike in the First Guf War with biological materials obtained by the US. These weapons according to Hassan included the following:

166 bombs (100 botulinum toxin, 50 anthrax, 16 aflatoxin);
25 Scud/A1 Hussein missile warheads (13 botulinum toxin, 10 anthrax, 2 aflatoxin); 122-mm rockets filled with anthrax, botulinum toxin, and aflatoxin;
spray tanks capable of being fitted to a fighter aircraft or remotely piloted aircraft, and spraying 2,000 L over a target; and artillery shells.

Hassan's claims have not been substantiated, but the shipments of the above biological materials to Iraq from the US have been.

[Secretariat]

Once again you criticize the pres. and excuse saddam and the terrorists. You blve that if we hadn't invaded Iraq everything would just be peaceful and nice... a virtual liberal utopia...

As Ronald Reagan said, "there you go again."

Where did I ever say it would be peaceful and nice..a utopia....

I've said all along that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and I've been proven correct as the WH now admits. We took our eye off the chase for Bin Laden and the Taliban and wasted a trillion dollars and thousands of lives for a civil war in Iraq.

And the money trail which GW vowed to go after which the Taliban receives via the poppy fields in Iraq is ignored. After General Meyers was grilled on the hill years ago and disgracefully tried to blame the British the moeny trail for the Talbian still persists. Here's an article from today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070410/ap_on_re_as/afghan_taliban_s_poppies

"Taliban netting millions from poppies
By JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press Writer

CHINAR, Afghanistan - When the Taliban ordered Afghanistan's fields cleared of opium poppies seven years ago because of Islam's ban on drugs, fearful farmers complied en masse.

Today, officials say the militia nets tens of millions by forcing farmers to plant poppies and taxing the harvest, driving the country's skyrocketing opium production to fund the fight against what they consider an even greater evil — U.S. and NATO troops.

"Drugs are bad. The Quran is very clear about it," said Gafus Scheltem, NATO's political adviser in southern Afghanistan. But to fight the enemy, he said, "all things are allowed. They need money and the only way they can get money is from Arabs that support them in the (Persian) Gulf, or poppies.""

Wake up Lefty.

[Greyfox]

General Hussein Kamal Hassan who defected to the US however stated they had the capability to strike in the First Guf War with biological materials obtained by the US. .

This man changed his story enough times that he was in the end, not believable.
First he said that Iraq had the biological weapons, then he said that they were destroyed.
It's sort of a moot point now though. As Saddam's son-in-law, he was murdered on his return to Iraq.

[46zilzal]

"I've also thought about the consequences of failure and what it would mean to the American people. If chaos were to reign in the capital of [Iraq] it could spill out to the rest of the country... In other words, this is a war in which, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here. That's the lesson of September the 11th."
Fort Irwin, California, Apr. 4, 2007

- ONE PROBLEM is that September the 11th had nothing to do with Iraq, and it seems pretty unlikely that the parties engaged in civil war in Iraq would actually contemplate attacking the U.S. on its own shores.

[Lefty]

zilly, we were attacked on our own shores and I'll wager by some of the same factions that desperately do not want a democracy in Iraq.
You and sec and others here better be the ones to wake up.

[46zilzal]

zilly, we were attacked on our own shores and I'll wager by some of the same factions that desperately do not want a democracy in Iraq.
You and sec and others here better be the ones to wake up.
Bull shit. There is not a shread of evidence to support that allegation. The highjackers were just about all Saudi's
Marwan al-Shehhi (from the United Arab Emirates), Fayez Banihammad (from the United Arab Emirates), Mohand al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Hamza al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).
Mohamed Atta al Sayed (Egyptian), Waleed al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Wail al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Abdulaziz al-Omari (Saudi Arabian), Satam al-Suqami (Saudi Arabian). Ziad Jarrah (Lebanese), Ahmed al-Haznawi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Nami (Saudi Arabian), Saeed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian). Hani Hanjour (Saudi Arabian), Khalid al-Mihdhar (Saudi Arabian), Majed Moqed (Saudi Arabian), Nawaf al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian), Salem al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian).

[Lefty]

zilly, You don't blve Al Qaeda is represented in Iraq right now? That's pretty risky thinking, in light of what has happened all over the world.

[46zilzal]

from the site: Bush Watch an interesting tidbit.
George Bush has a land mine planted in the supplemental appropriation legislation working its way through Congress. The Iraq Accountability Act passed by the House and the companion bill passed in the Senate contain deadlines for withdrawing our troops from Iraq, in open defiance of the President’s repeated objections.

He threatens a veto, but he might well be bluffing. Buried deep in the legislation and intentionally obscured is a near-guarantee of success for the Bush Administration’s true objective of the war-capturing Iraq’s oil-and George Bush will not casually forego that. This bizarre circumstance is the end-game of the brilliant, ever-deceitful maneuvering by the Bush Administration in conducting the entire scenario of the “global war on terror.” The supplemental appropriation package requires the Iraqi government to meet a series of “benchmarks” President Bush established in his speech to the nation on January 10 (in which he made his case for the “surge”). Most of Mr. Bush’s benchmarks are designed to blame the victim, forcing the Iraqis to solve the problems George Bush himself created.

One of the President’s benchmarks, however, stands apart. This is how the President described it: “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.” A seemingly decent, even noble concession. That’s all Mr. Bush said about that benchmark, but his brevity was gravely misleading, and it had to be intentional. The Iraqi Parliament has before it today, in fact, a bill called the hydrocarbon law, and it does call for revenue sharing among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. For President Bush, this is a must-have law, and it is the only “benchmark” that truly matters to his Administration. Yes, revenue sharing is there-essentially in fine print, essentially trivial. The bill is long and complex, it has been years in the making, and its primary purpose is transformational in scope: a radical and wholesale reconstruction-virtual privatization-of the currently nationalized Iraqi oil industry.

If passed, the law will make available to Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco, and Royal Dutch/Shell about 4/5’s of the stupendous petroleum reserves in Iraq. That is the wretched goal of the Bush Administration, and in his speech setting the revenue-sharing “benchmark” Mr. Bush consciously avoided any hint of it.The legislation pending now in Washington requires the President to certify to Congress by next October that the benchmarks have been met-specifically that the Iraqi hydrocarbon law has been passed. That’s the land mine: he will certify the American and British oil companies have access to Iraqi oil. This is not likely what Congress intended, but it is precisely what Mr. Bush has sought for the better part of six years. It is why we went to war.

[Lefty]

zilly, i'd like to read this bill. What's its number?

[PaceAdvantage]

If passed, the law will make available to Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco, and Royal Dutch/Shell about 4/5’s of the stupendous petroleum reserves in Iraq. That is the wretched goal of the Bush Administration, and in his speech setting the revenue-sharing “benchmark” Mr. Bush consciously avoided any hint of it.The legislation pending now in Washington requires the President to certify to Congress by next October that the benchmarks have been met-specifically that the Iraqi hydrocarbon law has been passed. That’s the land mine: he will certify the American and British oil companies have access to Iraqi oil. This is not likely what Congress intended, but it is precisely what Mr. Bush has sought for the better part of six years. It is why we went to war.


And this is a BAD thing because why? It's about time America went to war and finally got something out of the effort. Usually, we go to war and spend tons of money and time afterward building back up the country we just destroyed (Japan, Germany, Iraq etc.)

And 46, you just posted something that described the Bush Administration as:

This bizarre circumstance is the end-game of the brilliant, ever-deceitful maneuvering by the Bush Administration in conducting the entire scenario of the “global war on terror.”

That don't sound like a rutabaga to me....does it sound like a rutabaga to you?

[JustRalph]

This bizarre circumstance is the end-game of the brilliant, ever-deceitful maneuvering by the Bush Administration in conducting the entire scenario of the “global war on terror.”

Make up your mind. He is either a chimp/rutabaga/doofus or a man of brilliance and deceit. You can't have it both ways..........oh yes you can?

Duplicity reigns supreme

[46zilzal]

I did not write that. It is another's opinion and say the administration not the ass at the helm. Point was being sneaky and ulterior motives.

[Lefty]

zilly, that other guys's opinion is shared by you and since there's no bill number, i think the article is bogus and another canard proffered by the Bush haters. And you are a "card carrying" member of that group.

[46zilzal]

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

[philsfan07]

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

And even worse for you, attacks against Canada.

You certainly have a strong opinion against a leader outside of your own country.

[46zilzal]

And even worse for you, attacks against Canada.

You certainly have a strong opinion against a leader outside of your own country.
I am not going to explain it again to a newbie.

[bigmack]

the ass at the helm.
How bout you form a putsch and refrain from this internet nonsense?

I like the film A Touch of Evil. A cohort thinks it's a piece of trash. Everytime I see him he brings up the fact that he thinks it's garbage and everytime I tell him that I'm well aware of his opinion. He's watched it more than I have looking for more things that he detests about the film. I've begun to think he gets off on loathing.

Let me ask you this zilly: Do you get off on hatred and loathing? If you really feel such rage of the powers that be, do something about it. Don't continue to post up day after day articles that support your already defined belief. PUT THE KOOL-AID DOWN.

[46zilzal]

I'll pass after the rutabaga goes from the scene. Then I can stop making fun of the clown.

I just love junior psychologists telling ME I am angry with this idiot. HE is so stupid I pity him if anything. Making fun of his over brainless maneuvering is just reporting what is. I don't have to make up one single thing.

It's fun to point out an overt fool and the minions who cannot see it.

[bigmack]

Then I can stop making fun of the clown.
He is standing in front of us all complete with make-up, bright colored clothing and a big red nose. You're giving yourself way too much credit for pointing out something that is as clear as the big red nose.

For your conduct, it's been decided that you, sir, are an incorrigible louse.

[46zilzal]

"This is one of the most intellectually gifted presidents we've had." - Karl Rove, Jan. 19, 2005).

Takes an idiot to know an idiot.

[philsfan07]

"This is one of the most intellectually gifted presidents we've had." - Karl Rove, Jan. 19, 2005).

Takes an idiot to know an idiot.

Wow did you just serve up a lob for someone..

[philsfan07]

I did not write that. It is another's opinion and say the administration not the ass at the helm. Point was being sneaky and ulterior motives.

A politician who is being sneaky and had ulterior motives?? When did this start happening?

Next you are going to tell me the WWF is fixed..

[46zilzal]

Wow did you just serve up a lob for someone..
Are we playing tennis now?

[Show Me the Wire]

Out of compassion I will pass on the return.

[JustRalph]

I am not going to explain it again to a newbie.

you are so welcoming to new members............ Philsfan has been around long enough to get your number.

As a matter of fact he seems to be a hell of a nice guy..........and has participated in this forum in a manner that eclipses everything you have ever done in the months you have been here.

You embarrass the good members here............philsfan.......consider the source...............

[46zilzal]

You embarrass the good members here............philsfan.......consider the source...............
Why because I expose the rutabaga as a fool and the facts of the matter (his being an idiot) upset the reactionaries? There are SO many good examples to choose from.

For example: "In this global economy, new competition means that American businesses must constantly approve."
New York, New York, Jan. 31, 2007

[Show Me the Wire]

Why because I expose the rutabaga as a fool and the facts of the matter (his being an idiot) upset the reactionaries? There are SO many good examples to choose from.

Are you purposely tempting someone with yet another served-up lob?

[46zilzal]

another LOB from the brain stem who talks, and, regrettably, makes more war:
The goals of this country is to enhance prosperity and peace.
White House Conference on Global Literacy, New York, New York, Sep. 18, 2006

[Tom]

:rolleyes: 46, you only expose yourself with your obessive posts.:rolleyes:

[46zilzal]

Being obsessive does not change the fact that the rutabatga is a failure of the most exteme. Right there with Pierce, Harding, Buchanan and Johnson. "God told me to do it!"

[Lefty]

The quote from Jim Leher was precious. Now we habve newsmen interviewing newsmen to bolster their opinions. About as silly as you zilly.

[46zilzal]

The quote from Jim Leher was precious. Now we habve newsmen interviewing newsmen to bolster their opinions. About as silly as you zilly.
Nope that was the brain stem who roars talking in that quote. Sounds stupid as the rutabaga said it. One amongst many for the verbally dyslexic.

[Show Me the Wire]

Being obsessive does not change the fact that the rutabatga is a failure of the most exteme. Right there with Pierce, Harding, Buchanan and Johnson. "God told me to do it!"

I for one, would rather have a man that talks to God in the White House, than one who talks to ordinary dead people. How about you?

BTW have you come to terms with the takes an idiot to identify an idiot philosophy?

[Tom]

Bush talks to God.
Edwards talks to the dead.
Pelosi talks to terrorists.


Hmmmmm. Hard choice here.....NOT. :lol:

[philsfan07]

Are we playing tennis now?

Just your 'takes an idiot to know an idiot' comment made me think of seeing how many times you've called Bush an idiot.

Thinking out loud

[Tom]

:ThmbUp: Welcome to the board, Phil! :jump:

[kenwoodallpromos]

Why because I expose the rutabaga as a fool and the facts of the matter (his being an idiot) upset the reactionaries? There are SO many good examples to choose from.

For example: "In this global economy, ****new competition means that American businesses must constantly approve."
New York, New York, Jan. 31, 2007
__________________
As a global economy conspiriacy buff and someone who believes that first world countries attempt imperialsim daily, I believe Bush spoke the quote exactly as he intended! I think 46 just does not understand Bushspeak.
After all, it was his daddy that spoke about the "new world order".

[46zilzal]

Improve was more likely the word his feeble dyslexic mind was searching for, but then from that source, one never knows for sure!

[delayjf]

So now a fool, an idiot, and a clown with a feeble dyslexic mind is orchestrating a new world order???

OR,
Perhaps there is a subtle genius to everything he does that is incomprehensive to you.... and it's blowing your mind.

[Greyfox]

Improve was more likely the word his feeble dyslexic mind was searching for, but then from that source, one never knows for sure!

From the Song Let's Call the Whole thing Off (rev.)

"You say "either" and I say "either"
You say "neither" I say "neither"
"Either" "either", "neither" "neither"
Let's call the whole thing off
You say "potato," I say "patattah"
You say "tomato", I say "tomahta"
Let's call the whole thing off.
You say "improve," I say "approve"
You say whore, I say "ho"....
Let's call the ho thing off.

[46zilzal]

That might work if approve and improve were synonyms!

[Greyfox]

46zI'm working on the next verse
I can't find another word for synonym.
Can you give me one.
Oh well. Sin on him.

[Show Me the Wire]

46zI'm working on the next verse
I can't find another word for synonym.
Can you give me one.
Oh well. Sin on him.


I'll jump in, to help Zilzal. How about sameness or equivalent?

[Lefty]

This from a man that thinks other planets have an atmosphere JUST like Earth's, use last rights instead of Rites and doesn't even know what moot means. Enough of your ignorance, zilly!