Discussion:
What liberal media? Sept 10
(too old to reply)
Ubiquitous
2003-09-10 11:23:48 UTC
Permalink
The Jerusulem Post recentlo quoted Howard Dean uttering something that the
media would trumpet as proff of his stupidity if said by a Republican. Asked
about his views on the Isreali-Arab conflict, Dean said:

"The two-state solution is a solution that I support and I believe is the
ultimate way to peace in the Middle East. And we're going to have to be
the honest broker. The Americans are the only people who can broker that,
and I wish the president had spent more time on the Middle East and less
time on Iraq."

More time in the Mideast and less time in Iraq? That's like saying you should
get out of Indianapolis and go to the Midwest.
steve horan
2003-09-10 17:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ubiquitous
The Jerusulem Post recentlo quoted Howard Dean uttering something that the
media would trumpet as proff of his stupidity if said by a Republican. Asked
"The two-state solution is a solution that I support and I believe is the
ultimate way to peace in the Middle East. And we're going to have to be
the honest broker. The Americans are the only people who can broker that,
and I wish the president had spent more time on the Middle East and less
time on Iraq."
More time in the Mideast and less time in Iraq? That's like saying you should
get out of Indianapolis and go to the Midwest.
Is it sort of like invading Iraq after we've been
attacked by Al Qaida? Dean was talking off the
cuff and said "on the Middle East" instead of "on
the Middle East peace talks". Big whoop! Bush
says stuff like that all the time. Quit your
whining.
r***@rrogers.com
2003-09-10 21:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by steve horan
Post by Ubiquitous
The Jerusulem Post recentlo quoted Howard Dean uttering something that the
media would trumpet as proff of his stupidity if said by a Republican. Asked
"The two-state solution is a solution that I support and I believe is the
ultimate way to peace in the Middle East. And we're going to have to be
the honest broker. The Americans are the only people who can broker that,
and I wish the president had spent more time on the Middle East and less
time on Iraq."
More time in the Mideast and less time in Iraq? That's like saying you should
get out of Indianapolis and go to the Midwest.
Is it sort of like invading Iraq after we've been
attacked by Al Qaida? Dean was talking off the
cuff and said "on the Middle East" instead of "on
the Middle East peace talks". Big whoop! Bush
says stuff like that all the time. Quit your
whining.
Imagine Dean, lilly white Vermontian trying to understand
Middle East tensions! What a joke he is.
-Rich
Saerah Bennett
2003-09-10 22:09:15 UTC
Permalink
***@rrogers.com wrote in message ...

(corrected)
Imagine (any candidate), lilly white (american)trying to understand
Middle East tensions! What a joke (they all are).
lazarus
2003-09-10 22:57:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@rrogers.com
Post by steve horan
Post by Ubiquitous
The Jerusulem Post recentlo quoted Howard Dean uttering something that the
media would trumpet as proff of his stupidity if said by a Republican. Asked
"The two-state solution is a solution that I support and I believe is the
ultimate way to peace in the Middle East. And we're going to have to be
the honest broker. The Americans are the only people who can broker that,
and I wish the president had spent more time on the Middle East and less
time on Iraq."
More time in the Mideast and less time in Iraq? That's like saying you should
get out of Indianapolis and go to the Midwest.
Is it sort of like invading Iraq after we've been
attacked by Al Qaida? Dean was talking off the
cuff and said "on the Middle East" instead of "on
the Middle East peace talks". Big whoop! Bush
says stuff like that all the time. Quit your
whining.
Imagine Dean, lilly white Vermontian trying to understand
Middle East tensions! What a joke he is.
-Rich
Imagine Bush, idiot Texan, trying to understand Middle East tensions!
What a joke he is.
--
lazarus

"Folly it may seem," said Haldir. "Indeed, in nothing is the power
of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that
divides all those who still oppose him." -- J.R.R. Tolkien
Founding Father
2003-09-11 07:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by lazarus
Imagine Bush, idiot Texan, trying to understand Middle East tensions!
What a joke he is.
Bush understands the Middle East a hell of a lot better than Jimmy Carter
who paved the way for militant Islamists in Iran or Bill Clinton who let bin
Laden go numerous times. That relentless show of WEAKNESS (along with the
dismantling of our intelligence capabilities) led to 9/11.

Bush understands the only thing these terrorists understand is force.
Democrats believe only in appeasement, which has failed every time it's been
tried (not to mention N. Korea, which isn't in the Middle East).
lazarus
2003-09-11 07:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Imagine Bush, idiot Texan, trying to understand Middle East tensions!
What a joke he is.
Bush understands the Middle East a hell of a lot better than Jimmy Carter
who paved the way for militant Islamists in Iran or Bill Clinton who let bin
Laden go numerous times. That relentless show of WEAKNESS (along with the
dismantling of our intelligence capabilities) led to 9/11.
As opposed to the weakness in Beirut, eh? 200+ Marines killed, and we
fled with our tails between our legs. Which Democrat was responsible
for that?

Afghanistan offered repeatedly to turn bin Laden over to Bush, but he
refused. Guess his war was more important, eh?

Where is Osama, anyway? You'd think after two years he'd have caught
him, if it's so damned easy.
Post by Founding Father
Bush understands the only thing these terrorists understand is force.
Democrats believe only in appeasement, which has failed every time it's been
tried (not to mention N. Korea, which isn't in the Middle East).
And the Israeli solution of fighting back is working so damned well,
isn't it? BTW, the Dems don't believe in "appeasement", so find
another straw horse to beat on.

Finally, I'll leave you with the words of a different President Bush:


"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an
occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not
changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and
would have incurred incalculable human and political costs.
Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find
Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced
to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would
instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other
allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no
viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our
principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a
pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in
and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations'
mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response
to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion
route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power
in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically
different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

G.H.W. Bush, from George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, A World
Transformed (1998), pp. 489-90:
--
lazarus

"Folly it may seem," said Haldir. "Indeed, in nothing is the power
of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that
divides all those who still oppose him." -- J.R.R. Tolkien
Joe Cox
2003-09-12 17:03:14 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by lazarus
"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an
occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not
changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and
would have incurred incalculable human and political costs.
Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find
Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced
to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would
instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other
allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no
viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our
principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a
pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in
and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations'
mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response
to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion
route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power
in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically
different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
G.H.W. Bush, from George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, A World
It's to bad the son lacks the wisdom of his father.
--
---

Joe Cox

"It's easier to get older than it is to get wiser."
Founding Father
2003-09-20 04:23:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Cox
<snip>
Post by lazarus
"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an
occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not
changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and
would have incurred incalculable human and political costs.
Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find
Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced
to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would
instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other
allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no
viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our
principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a
pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in
and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations'
mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response
to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion
route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power
in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically
different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
G.H.W. Bush, from George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, A World
It's to bad the son lacks the wisdom of his father.
Exactly the opposite. If Bush, Sr., had not been such a liberal,
internationalist, Republican he would have taken Saddam out 12 years ago,
saving us all that trouble and perhaps as much as half a million Iraqi
lives.
lazarus
2003-09-20 04:26:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Founding Father
Post by Joe Cox
<snip>
Post by lazarus
"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an
occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not
changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and
would have incurred incalculable human and political costs.
Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find
Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced
to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would
instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other
allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no
viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our
principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a
pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in
and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations'
mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response
to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion
route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power
in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically
different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
G.H.W. Bush, from George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, A World
It's to bad the son lacks the wisdom of his father.
Exactly the opposite. If Bush, Sr., had not been such a liberal,
internationalist, Republican he would have taken Saddam out 12 years ago,
saving us all that trouble and perhaps as much as half a million Iraqi
lives.
Reagan was too liberal, too, wasn't he?
--
lazarus

"Folly it may seem," said Haldir. "Indeed, in nothing is the power
of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that
divides all those who still oppose him." -- J.R.R. Tolkien
Founding Father
2003-09-21 03:12:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by Joe Cox
It's to bad the son lacks the wisdom of his father.
Exactly the opposite. If Bush, Sr., had not been such a liberal,
internationalist, Republican he would have taken Saddam out 12 years ago,
saving us all that trouble and perhaps as much as half a million Iraqi
lives.
Reagan was too liberal, too, wasn't he?
On some issues (where he screwed up) - absolutely.
lazarus
2003-09-21 15:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by Joe Cox
It's to bad the son lacks the wisdom of his father.
Exactly the opposite. If Bush, Sr., had not been such a liberal,
internationalist, Republican he would have taken Saddam out 12 years ago,
saving us all that trouble and perhaps as much as half a million Iraqi
lives.
Reagan was too liberal, too, wasn't he?
On some issues (where he screwed up) - absolutely.
Such as his vicious response to the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut,
where he immediately pulled out and invaded Grenada? Wag the dog....
--
lazarus

"Folly it may seem," said Haldir. "Indeed, in nothing is the power
of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that
divides all those who still oppose him." -- J.R.R. Tolkien
r***@rrogers.com
2003-09-22 03:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by Joe Cox
It's to bad the son lacks the wisdom of his father.
Exactly the opposite. If Bush, Sr., had not been such a liberal,
internationalist, Republican he would have taken Saddam out 12 years ago,
saving us all that trouble and perhaps as much as half a million Iraqi
lives.
Reagan was too liberal, too, wasn't he?
On some issues (where he screwed up) - absolutely.
Such as his vicious response to the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut,
where he immediately pulled out and invaded Grenada? Wag the dog....
Lets see; Bush attacks and invades Afghanistan over 9/11 and the left
bitches. Reagan does very little after the barracks bombing, and the
left bitches about it. Pschizo, anyone?
-Rich
lazarus
2003-09-22 06:06:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@rrogers.com
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by Joe Cox
It's to bad the son lacks the wisdom of his father.
Exactly the opposite. If Bush, Sr., had not been such a liberal,
internationalist, Republican he would have taken Saddam out 12 years ago,
saving us all that trouble and perhaps as much as half a million Iraqi
lives.
Reagan was too liberal, too, wasn't he?
On some issues (where he screwed up) - absolutely.
Such as his vicious response to the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut,
where he immediately pulled out and invaded Grenada? Wag the dog....
Lets see; Bush attacks and invades Afghanistan over 9/11 and the left
bitches. Reagan does very little after the barracks bombing, and the
left bitches about it. Pschizo, anyone?
-Rich
Let's see: Afghanistan didn't attack us. The Taliban did. That
would be the same Taliban that just held a Terrorist's Summit hosted
by Mullah Omar.

Hell of a job, there.

The right worships Reagan, who did nothing about the deaths of over
200 Marines, but viciously attacks Clinton, who arrested and punished
those who committed terrorist acts against us during his Presidency
(except for the Cole, which took Bush years and another country's help
to accomplish).

Schizo, anyone?
--
lazarus

"Folly it may seem," said Haldir. "Indeed, in nothing is the power
of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that
divides all those who still oppose him." -- J.R.R. Tolkien
David Johnston
2003-09-22 08:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by lazarus
Post by r***@rrogers.com
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by Joe Cox
It's to bad the son lacks the wisdom of his father.
Exactly the opposite. If Bush, Sr., had not been such a liberal,
internationalist, Republican he would have taken Saddam out 12 years ago,
saving us all that trouble and perhaps as much as half a million Iraqi
lives.
Reagan was too liberal, too, wasn't he?
On some issues (where he screwed up) - absolutely.
Such as his vicious response to the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut,
where he immediately pulled out and invaded Grenada? Wag the dog....
Lets see; Bush attacks and invades Afghanistan over 9/11 and the left
bitches. Reagan does very little after the barracks bombing, and the
left bitches about it. Pschizo, anyone?
-Rich
Let's see: Afghanistan didn't attack us. The Taliban did.
No they didn't. Al Quaeda is not the same thing as the Taliban
although they were (and presumably are) friendly.
lazarus
2003-09-22 21:32:42 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 08:36:32 GMT, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by lazarus
Post by r***@rrogers.com
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by Joe Cox
It's to bad the son lacks the wisdom of his father.
Exactly the opposite. If Bush, Sr., had not been such a liberal,
internationalist, Republican he would have taken Saddam out 12 years ago,
saving us all that trouble and perhaps as much as half a million Iraqi
lives.
Reagan was too liberal, too, wasn't he?
On some issues (where he screwed up) - absolutely.
Such as his vicious response to the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut,
where he immediately pulled out and invaded Grenada? Wag the dog....
Lets see; Bush attacks and invades Afghanistan over 9/11 and the left
bitches. Reagan does very little after the barracks bombing, and the
left bitches about it. Pschizo, anyone?
-Rich
Let's see: Afghanistan didn't attack us. The Taliban did.
No they didn't. Al Quaeda is not the same thing as the Taliban
although they were (and presumably are) friendly.
Yeah, I can't believe I made that mistake. Oops.
--
lazarus

"Folly it may seem," said Haldir. "Indeed, in nothing is the power
of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that
divides all those who still oppose him." -- J.R.R. Tolkien
David Johnston
2003-09-22 06:20:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@rrogers.com
Post by lazarus
Such as his vicious response to the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut,
where he immediately pulled out and invaded Grenada? Wag the dog....
Lets see; Bush attacks and invades Afghanistan over 9/11 and the left
bitches.
Most of the left waved pom-poms.
lazarus
2003-09-22 06:42:29 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 06:20:11 GMT, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by r***@rrogers.com
Post by lazarus
Such as his vicious response to the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut,
where he immediately pulled out and invaded Grenada? Wag the dog....
Lets see; Bush attacks and invades Afghanistan over 9/11 and the left
bitches.
Most of the left waved pom-poms.
Yeah, we didn't get really pissed until he lied us into a war with
Iraq.
--
lazarus

"Folly it may seem," said Haldir. "Indeed, in nothing is the power
of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that
divides all those who still oppose him." -- J.R.R. Tolkien
Founding Father
2003-09-25 05:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by lazarus
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 06:20:11 GMT, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by r***@rrogers.com
Post by lazarus
Such as his vicious response to the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut,
where he immediately pulled out and invaded Grenada? Wag the dog....
Lets see; Bush attacks and invades Afghanistan over 9/11 and the left
bitches.
Most of the left waved pom-poms.
Yeah, we didn't get really pissed until he lied us into a war with
Iraq.
1) He didn't lie.
2) On the one hand leftists complain about not "connecting the dots" before
9/11. But there was far more evidence of WMD in Iraq than there was
evidence of an impending attack before 9/11. The left apparently wants us
to wait for tens or hundreds of thousands dead before doing anything.
3) The left made excuses for Saddam the same way they made excuses for
Stalin, so
4) The left doesn't want Bush to win the war against terrorism any more than
they wanted Reagan to win the Cold War.
lazarus
2003-09-25 05:52:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 06:20:11 GMT, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by r***@rrogers.com
Post by lazarus
Such as his vicious response to the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut,
where he immediately pulled out and invaded Grenada? Wag the dog....
Lets see; Bush attacks and invades Afghanistan over 9/11 and the left
bitches.
Most of the left waved pom-poms.
Yeah, we didn't get really pissed until he lied us into a war with
Iraq.
1) He didn't lie.
Really? Where are the WMDs?
Post by Founding Father
2) On the one hand leftists complain about not "connecting the dots" before
9/11. But there was far more evidence of WMD in Iraq than there was
evidence of an impending attack before 9/11. The left apparently wants us
to wait for tens or hundreds of thousands dead before doing anything.
Is that the evidence that Colin Powell said didn't exist?

"And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant
capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable
to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our
policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and
these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are
always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried
out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the
Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass
destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue."

That's from February of 2001, Powell's remarks with the Egyptian
Foreign Minister.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm
Post by Founding Father
3) The left made excuses for Saddam the same way they made excuses for
Stalin, so
What excuses did we make for Saddam? List them, please. Were they
any worse than the excuses Cheney made for Saddam when he tried to get
the embargo lifted so he could sell them more stuff?
Post by Founding Father
4) The left doesn't want Bush to win the war against terrorism any more than
they wanted Reagan to win the Cold War.
No, we just know that he's not fighting a war on terrorism. There
weren't terrorists in Iraq before the war. We supposedly were there
to "liberate" the Iraqis, but fired Jay Garner when he said he wanted
to hold an election.

At this point, it's fairly clear that our troops are dying to keep the
Iraqis from voting. Some liberation.
--
lazarus

"Folly it may seem," said Haldir. "Indeed, in nothing is the power
of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that
divides all those who still oppose him." -- J.R.R. Tolkien
Founding Father
2003-09-25 06:39:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 06:20:11 GMT, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by r***@rrogers.com
Post by lazarus
Such as his vicious response to the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut,
where he immediately pulled out and invaded Grenada? Wag the dog....
Lets see; Bush attacks and invades Afghanistan over 9/11 and the left
bitches.
Most of the left waved pom-poms.
Yeah, we didn't get really pissed until he lied us into a war with
Iraq.
1) He didn't lie.
Really? Where are the WMDs?
We don't know, yet. Some intelligence reports indicate they were moved to
Syria and/or Lebanon before the war. Others say he destroyed them. But
there's not one intelligence agency I know of that maintained he had none.
So all evidence pointed to him having them. We may have been wrong, but
that doesn't make it a lie.
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
2) On the one hand leftists complain about not "connecting the dots" before
9/11. But there was far more evidence of WMD in Iraq than there was
evidence of an impending attack before 9/11. The left apparently wants us
to wait for tens or hundreds of thousands dead before doing anything.
Is that the evidence that Colin Powell said didn't exist?
"And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant
capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable
to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our
policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and
these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are
always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried
out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the
Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass
destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue."
That's from February of 2001, Powell's remarks with the Egyptian
Foreign Minister.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm
Well, Powell is the same jerk who kept Bush 41 from taking Saddam out in the
first Gulf War like he should have. I have no clue why Bush 43 put Powell
in his cabinet.
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
3) The left made excuses for Saddam the same way they made excuses for
Stalin, so
What excuses did we make for Saddam? List them, please. Were they
any worse than the excuses Cheney made for Saddam when he tried to get
the embargo lifted so he could sell them more stuff?
Post by Founding Father
4) The left doesn't want Bush to win the war against terrorism any more than
they wanted Reagan to win the Cold War.
No, we just know that he's not fighting a war on terrorism. There
weren't terrorists in Iraq before the war.
You are a complete idiot, or a liar (perhaps both).

Ever hear of Abu Nidal, who was living in Bagdhad when he was captured by
U.S. forces?

What about Salman Pak where terrorists were trained how to take over planes
in a Boeing 707 fuselage?

How about Mohammed Atta meeting with the head of the Iraqi intelligence
service?

Report: Iraq, Al Qaeda Run Extremist Group In Kurdish Territory
Guerrillas Linked to Bin Laden Camps
By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 18, 2002; Page A12
A new report in the New Yorker magazine suggests that Iraqi intelligence has
been in close touch with top officials in Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda group
for
years, and that the two organizations jointly run a terrorist organization
that
operates in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq.

How about Saddam paying the families of Palestinian terrorist who
deliberately target and murder innocent Israeli women and children $25,000 (
that's 16 times the per capita income).

Philippine terrorists claim link to Iraq
Marc Lerner
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published March 4, 2003

CEBU, Philippines " Islamist terrorists in the southern
Philippines
who have killed two American hostages in recent years say they are
receiving money from Iraqis close to President Saddam Hussein.
Hamsiraji Sali, a local commander of the terrorist group Abu
Sayyaf
on the remote southern island of Basilan, says he is getting nearly
$20,000 a year from supporters in Iraq.


People like you illustrate why we can NEVER AGAIN trust the left with our
national security.
Post by lazarus
We supposedly were there
to "liberate" the Iraqis, but fired Jay Garner when he said he wanted
to hold an election.
That was Powell's work again. He put the incompetent Bremer in place, who
proceeded to dismantle the entire Iraqi regular army instead of using them
to provide security, search the Mosques we're not allowed to enter, etc.
Post by lazarus
At this point, it's fairly clear that our troops are dying to keep the
Iraqis from voting. Some liberation.
--
lazarus
"Folly it may seem," said Haldir. "Indeed, in nothing is the power
of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that
divides all those who still oppose him." -- J.R.R. Tolkien
lazarus
2003-09-25 06:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by lazarus
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 06:20:11 GMT, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by r***@rrogers.com
Post by lazarus
Such as his vicious response to the Marine Barracks bombing in
Beirut,
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by David Johnston
Post by r***@rrogers.com
Post by lazarus
where he immediately pulled out and invaded Grenada? Wag the
dog....
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by David Johnston
Post by r***@rrogers.com
Lets see; Bush attacks and invades Afghanistan over 9/11 and the
left
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by David Johnston
Post by r***@rrogers.com
bitches.
Most of the left waved pom-poms.
Yeah, we didn't get really pissed until he lied us into a war with
Iraq.
1) He didn't lie.
Really? Where are the WMDs?
We don't know, yet. Some intelligence reports indicate they were moved to
Syria and/or Lebanon before the war. Others say he destroyed them. But
there's not one intelligence agency I know of that maintained he had none.
So all evidence pointed to him having them. We may have been wrong, but
that doesn't make it a lie.
That would be the evidence that Colin Powell declared he didn't have
them, right?

Actually, there is one intelligence agency that maintains he didn't
have them. The UN Inspection Team that actually went and looked.

Notice how all of a sudden we're looking for evidence of a "program"
instead of actual weapons? Now why in the world is that happening?
Post by lazarus
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
2) On the one hand leftists complain about not "connecting the dots"
before
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
9/11. But there was far more evidence of WMD in Iraq than there was
evidence of an impending attack before 9/11. The left apparently wants
us
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
to wait for tens or hundreds of thousands dead before doing anything.
Is that the evidence that Colin Powell said didn't exist?
"And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant
capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable
to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our
policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and
these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are
always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried
out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the
Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass
destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue."
That's from February of 2001, Powell's remarks with the Egyptian
Foreign Minister.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm
Well, Powell is the same jerk who kept Bush 41 from taking Saddam out in the
first Gulf War like he should have. I have no clue why Bush 43 put Powell
in his cabinet.
Condi Rice said the same thing. Is she a jerk, too?
Post by lazarus
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
3) The left made excuses for Saddam the same way they made excuses for
Stalin, so
What excuses did we make for Saddam? List them, please. Were they
any worse than the excuses Cheney made for Saddam when he tried to get
the embargo lifted so he could sell them more stuff?
Post by Founding Father
4) The left doesn't want Bush to win the war against terrorism any more
than
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
they wanted Reagan to win the Cold War.
No, we just know that he's not fighting a war on terrorism. There
weren't terrorists in Iraq before the war.
You are a complete idiot, or a liar (perhaps both).
Really? And we were getting along so well.
Post by lazarus
Ever hear of Abu Nidal, who was living in Bagdhad when he was captured by
U.S. forces?
How long since he committed a terrorist act?
Post by lazarus
What about Salman Pak where terrorists were trained how to take over planes
in a Boeing 707 fuselage?
Actually, that's where Saddam's counter-terrorism forces were being
trained to take over planes that had been hijacked.
Post by lazarus
How about Mohammed Atta meeting with the head of the Iraqi intelligence
service?
The Washington Post? Thanks, I'll get my news from someone who
doesn't work for the Rev. Moon.

BTW, we were in complete control of Iraq's Kurdish Territory, so were
we allowing this to happen?
Post by lazarus
Report: Iraq, Al Qaeda Run Extremist Group In Kurdish Territory
Guerrillas Linked to Bin Laden Camps
By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 18, 2002; Page A12
A new report in the New Yorker magazine suggests that Iraqi intelligence has
been in close touch with top officials in Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda group
for
years, and that the two organizations jointly run a terrorist organization
that
operates in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq.
How about Saddam paying the families of Palestinian terrorist who
deliberately target and murder innocent Israeli women and children $25,000 (
that's 16 times the per capita income).
That's also substantially less than Saudi Arabia, Syria, and virtually
every other Arab nation was giving.
Post by lazarus
Philippine terrorists claim link to Iraq
Marc Lerner
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published March 4, 2003
CEBU, Philippines " Islamist terrorists in the southern
Philippines
who have killed two American hostages in recent years say they are
receiving money from Iraqis close to President Saddam Hussein.
Hamsiraji Sali, a local commander of the terrorist group Abu
Sayyaf
on the remote southern island of Basilan, says he is getting nearly
$20,000 a year from supporters in Iraq.
People like you illustrate why we can NEVER AGAIN trust the left with our
national security.
Well, Bush has done such a great job.

Where is Osama?

Where's Saddam?

Where are the WMD?

Why is Mullah Omar holding Taliban Summits to plan the fight against
us? Did he not get the memo that we beat them?
Post by lazarus
Post by lazarus
We supposedly were there
to "liberate" the Iraqis, but fired Jay Garner when he said he wanted
to hold an election.
That was Powell's work again. He put the incompetent Bremer in place, who
proceeded to dismantle the entire Iraqi regular army instead of using them
to provide security, search the Mosques we're not allowed to enter, etc.
Ah, the Iraqi Army should have been in charge. That makes sense.

And you would have put the Wehrmacht in charge of post-war Germany,
right? And may as well use the Gestapo and SS as a police force,
since they were already in charge....

So why haven't the Iraqis been allowed to have an election yet? Too
busy selling Iraq to Bush's friends?
Post by lazarus
Post by lazarus
At this point, it's fairly clear that our troops are dying to keep the
Iraqis from voting. Some liberation.
Answer?
--
lazarus

"Folly it may seem," said Haldir. "Indeed, in nothing is the power
of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that
divides all those who still oppose him." -- J.R.R. Tolkien
Founding Father
2003-09-25 10:59:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Really? Where are the WMDs?
We don't know, yet. Some intelligence reports indicate they were moved to
Syria and/or Lebanon before the war. Others say he destroyed them. But
there's not one intelligence agency I know of that maintained he had none.
So all evidence pointed to him having them. We may have been wrong, but
that doesn't make it a lie.
That would be the evidence that Colin Powell declared he didn't have
them, right?
No. We only found that out after the war. Best evidence at the time
indicated he had them.

Still not a lie - but keep trying. I love the way you Saddamites are harder
on Bush than you ever were on Saddam.
Post by lazarus
Actually, there is one intelligence agency that maintains he didn't
have them. The UN Inspection Team that actually went and looked.
That's an inspection team, not an intelligence agency. And they had a long
track record of not finding weapons that were there.

DISARMING IRAQ

Mr. Blix Goes to Baghdad
A U.N. bureaucrat won't be willing to hand the world a war.

BY GARY MILHOLLIN
Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, November 26, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST

Hans Blix, by now a household name from New York to New
Delhi, begins his fateful mission this week: rooting out
Saddam Hussein's hidden programs for making nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons. Everyone should wish the
chief U.N. weapons inspector and his colleagues success, but
the odds are against it. Instead of disarmament, we are
likely to get a prolonged process of paper pushing.

The main concern is Mr. Blix himself. The 74-year-old Swede
was not the top choice for the job. The United States backed
Rolf Ekeus, the highly effective leader of the U.N. Special
Commission that inspected Iraq in the 1990s. But Iraq's
champions in the U.N. Security Council, Russia and France,
vetoed Mr. Ekeus as too aggressive. They put up Mr. Blix
instead. After ineffectual opposition from the Clinton
administration, Mr. Blix took over the present U.N.
inspection organization (called UNMOVIC) in January 2000.

There is a reason why Iraq's friends preferred Mr. Blix. He
already had an unsurpassed record of failure in dealing with
Saddam Hussein. From 1981 to 1997, Mr. Blix headed the
International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. body
responsible for inspecting nuclear sites around the
world--including Iraq's--to make sure they are not cranking
out atomic bombs. As late as 1990, the same year Iraq
invaded Kuwait, Mr. Blix's inspectors rated Iraq's
cooperation as "exemplary." But all the while Saddam was
running a vast A-bomb program under their very noses. Iraq
produced both plutonium and enriched uranium for nuclear
weapons in clear violation of the IAEA's rules. Some of the
work went on at the same places that were being inspected,
and was hidden with the help of an Iraqi official who was
himself a former IAEA inspector. (His knowledge of inspection
techniques helped dupe his former colleagues). Had the Gulf
War not intervened, Iraq might have made its first bomb
without anyone being the wiser. Mr. Blix's spokesman at
UNMOVIC has tried to explain away this embarrassment by
claiming that Mr. Blix had only limited powers under the
IAEA's rules. But the facts are otherwise. Mr. Blix had a
lot of discretion, and he always used it to reduce the
effectiveness of inspections.

For example, Iraq possessed more than 45 kilograms of highly
enriched uranium before the Gulf War, far more than the 25
kilograms that the IAEA officially said was enough to make
an atomic bomb. Iraq had imported the uranium from Russia
and France as reactor fuel, but it would work in a bomb just
as well. Now, when a country like Iraq has more than a bomb's
worth of weapon-usable uranium, the IAEA is supposed to
inspect it every three weeks, because that is all the time
it is supposed to take to fashion it into a warhead. Under
Mr. Blix, however, the IAEA was inspecting it only every six
months. Why? Because the uranium was stored in a number of
separate "material balance areas" (where the inspectors went
to measure it) and there was less than a bomb's worth in
each! The areas were only a mile or so apart, so the whole
thing was absurd. The stuff could be assembled in days, if
not hours. But rather than annoy the Iraqis with frequent
inspections, Mr. Blix chose the head-in-the-sand
approach--which the Iraqis were quick to exploit.
Immediately after the last six-month inspection before the
Gulf War, they diverted the uranium to a crash nuclear
weapon effort, which only the war prevented from succeeding.


Blix was not called "Inspector Clousseau" for nothing.
Post by lazarus
Notice how all of a sudden we're looking for evidence of a "program"
instead of actual weapons? Now why in the world is that happening?
Because chemical and biological weapons can be easily hidden in small
amounts. The manufacturing equipment is harder to hide. Also, if you
retain the manufacturing capacity, you can even destroy your supply and then
rebuild it later. I don't want someone like Saddam to have even the
manufacturing capacity. Apparently YOU don't care. Keep arguing - all you
do is convince people we can't trust our national security to the left.
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Well, Powell is the same jerk who kept Bush 41 from taking Saddam out in the
first Gulf War like he should have. I have no clue why Bush 43 put Powell
in his cabinet.
Condi Rice said the same thing. Is she a jerk, too?
In 1991 Condi Rice was Provost of Stanford University.
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
3) The left made excuses for Saddam the same way they made excuses for
Stalin, so
What excuses did we make for Saddam? List them, please. Were they
any worse than the excuses Cheney made for Saddam when he tried to get
the embargo lifted so he could sell them more stuff?
Post by Founding Father
4) The left doesn't want Bush to win the war against terrorism any more
than
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
they wanted Reagan to win the Cold War.
No, we just know that he's not fighting a war on terrorism. There
weren't terrorists in Iraq before the war.
You are a complete idiot, or a liar (perhaps both).
Really? And we were getting along so well.
Post by Founding Father
Ever hear of Abu Nidal, who was living in Bagdhad when he was captured by
U.S. forces?
How long since he committed a terrorist act?
I hate to tell you, but if you're harboring a known murderer, the fact that
the last murder (we know about) happened 10 years ago is not going to get
you acquitted.
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
What about Salman Pak where terrorists were trained how to take over planes
in a Boeing 707 fuselage?
Actually, that's where Saddam's counter-terrorism forces were being
trained to take over planes that had been hijacked.
Sure. There's a long record of Iraqi planes being highjacked.
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
How about Mohammed Atta meeting with the head of the Iraqi intelligence
service?
The Washington Post? Thanks, I'll get my news from someone who
doesn't work for the Rev. Moon.
The Washington Post? The paper of Woodward and Bernstein?
Post by lazarus
BTW, we were in complete control of Iraq's Kurdish Territory, so were
we allowing this to happen?
Air control is hardly complete control, as the Kurds tragically found out
when Saddam slaughtered them.
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Report: Iraq, Al Qaeda Run Extremist Group In Kurdish Territory
Guerrillas Linked to Bin Laden Camps
By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 18, 2002; Page A12
A new report in the New Yorker magazine suggests that Iraqi intelligence has
been in close touch with top officials in Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda group
for
years, and that the two organizations jointly run a terrorist
organization
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
that
operates in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq.
How about Saddam paying the families of Palestinian terrorist who
deliberately target and murder innocent Israeli women and children $25,000 (
that's 16 times the per capita income).
That's also substantially less than Saudi Arabia, Syria, and virtually
every other Arab nation was giving.
Post by Founding Father
Philippine terrorists claim link to Iraq
Marc Lerner
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published March 4, 2003
CEBU, Philippines " Islamist terrorists in the southern
Philippines
who have killed two American hostages in recent years say they are
receiving money from Iraqis close to President Saddam Hussein.
Hamsiraji Sali, a local commander of the terrorist group Abu
Sayyaf
on the remote southern island of Basilan, says he is getting nearly
$20,000 a year from supporters in Iraq.
People like you illustrate why we can NEVER AGAIN trust the left with our
national security.
Well, Bush has done such a great job.
Where is Osama?
Probably dead. If Clinton had done his job he'd be in prison (or known to
be dead) and 9/11 would never have happened.
Post by lazarus
Where's Saddam?
No longer in power. If it were up to you he'd still be sitting in his kushy
palace murdering thousands of people every month.
Post by lazarus
Where are the WMD?
I already addressed that. Now let me add this (from an opponent of the
war):

April 27, 2003
The Meaning of a Skull
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
New York Times

Friday's Times carried a front-page picture of a skull, with a group
of
Iraqis gathered around it. The skull was of a political prisoner from
Saddam Hussein's regime, and the grieving Iraqis were relatives who
had
exhumed it from a graveyard filled with other victims of Saddam's
torture.
Just under the picture was an article about President Bush vowing that
weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq, as he promised.

As far as I'm concerned, we do not need to find any weapons of mass
destruction to justify this war. That skull, and the thousands more
that
will be unearthed, are enough for me. Mr. Bush doesn't owe the world
any
explanation for missing chemical weapons (even if it turns out that
the
White House hyped this issue). It is clear that in ending Saddam's
tyranny, a huge human engine for mass destruction has been broken. The
thing about Saddam's reign is that when you look at that skull, you
don't
even know what period it came from - his suppression of the Kurds or
the
Shiites, his insane wars with Iran and Kuwait, or just his daily
brutality.

Whether you were for or against this war, whether you preferred that
the
war be done with the U.N.'s approval or without it, you have to feel
good
that right has triumphed over wrong. America did the right thing here.
It
toppled one of the most evil regimes on the face of the earth, and I
don't
think we know even a fraction of how deep that evil went. Fair-minded
people have to acknowledge that. Who cares if we now find some buried
barrels of poison? Do they carry more moral weight than those buried
skulls? No way.

And this from another:

http://globalspecops.com/view.html

Iraq: A Federal Judge's Point of View
By Judge Don Walters

Despite my initial opposition to the war, I am now convinced,
whether we find any weapons of mass destruction or prove
Saddam sheltered and financed terrorists, absolutely, we
should have overthrown the Baathists, indeed, we should have
done it sooner.

What changed my mind?

When we left mid June, 57 mass graves had been found, one
with the bodies of 1200 children. There have been credible
reports of murder, brutality and torture of hundreds of
thousands of ordinary Iraqi citizens. There is poverty on a
monumental scale and fear on a larger one. That fear is
still palpable.

I have seen the machines and places of torture. I will tell
you one story told to me by the Chief of Pediatrics at the
Medical College in Basra. It was one of the most shocking to
me, but I heard worse. One of Saddam's security agents was
sent to question a Shiite in his home. The interrogation
took place in the living room in the presence of the man's
wife, who held their three month old child. A question was
asked and the thug did not like the answer; he asked it
again, same answer. He grabbed the baby from its mother and
plucked its eye out. And then repeated his question. Worse
things happened with the knowledge, indeed with the
participation, of Saddam, his family and the Baathist regime.


Thousands suffered while we were messing about with France
and Russia and Germany and the UN. Every one of them knew
what was going on there, but France and the UN were making
millions administering the food for oil program. We cannot,
I know, remake the world, nor do I believe we should. We
cannot stamp out evil, I know. But this time we were morally
right and our economic and strategic interests were
involved. I submit that just because we can't do everything
doesn't mean that we should do nothing.
Post by lazarus
Why is Mullah Omar holding Taliban Summits to plan the fight against
us? Did he not get the memo that we beat them?
There was Japanese resistance after the end of WWII as well, despite the
declaration of their "divine" emperor.

If it were up to you, the Taliban would still be running Afghanistan, and
the women would be prevented from getting an education or even going out in
public without their husbands. And if they should kiss the wrong man, they
could be the subject of an "honor killing." That's what YOUR policies would
give the world.
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
We supposedly were there
to "liberate" the Iraqis, but fired Jay Garner when he said he wanted
to hold an election.
That was Powell's work again. He put the incompetent Bremer in place, who
proceeded to dismantle the entire Iraqi regular army instead of using them
to provide security, search the Mosques we're not allowed to enter, etc.
Ah, the Iraqi Army should have been in charge. That makes sense.
In charge, no. Help, yes.
Post by lazarus
And you would have put the Wehrmacht in charge of post-war Germany,
right? And may as well use the Gestapo and SS as a police force,
since they were already in charge....
I said regular army, not the Republican Guard. Don't you know the
difference?

I read we DID use some members of the regular German army.
Post by lazarus
So why haven't the Iraqis been allowed to have an election yet? Too
busy selling Iraq to Bush's friends?
I see. We should let them vote, but we can't trust them to patrol their own
streets?

How long did it take for America to complete its constitution after the
revolution?

It's a damn good thing leftists weren't in charge of WWII and its aftermath.
I can just see the questions from the press: President Roosevelt, how long
will it take? How much will it cost? What's the exit strategy? How long
will it take to rebuild Europe? How much will it cost? ...
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
At this point, it's fairly clear that our troops are dying to keep the
Iraqis from voting. Some liberation.
Answer?
The answer is that was a stupid comment. We're there to help make them
secure and rebuild the infrastructure, not to keep them from voting. Only
in your little fantasy mind can a country go from absolute despotism to full
democracy and a couple of months.
lazarus
2003-09-25 12:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Really? Where are the WMDs?
We don't know, yet. Some intelligence reports indicate they were moved
to
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Syria and/or Lebanon before the war. Others say he destroyed them. But
there's not one intelligence agency I know of that maintained he had
none.
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
So all evidence pointed to him having them. We may have been wrong, but
that doesn't make it a lie.
That would be the evidence that Colin Powell declared he didn't have
them, right?
No. We only found that out after the war. Best evidence at the time
indicated he had them.
Still not a lie - but keep trying. I love the way you Saddamites are harder
on Bush than you ever were on Saddam.
So why were Colin 'n' Condi so convinced that he was no threat?
You're saying best evidence is that he had them, when in reality, the
UN inspectors said he didn't, and Condi 'n' Colin said he didn't.
What evidence? The only evidence we had was from Chalabi, who is,
shall we say, less than trustworthy at this point?
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Actually, there is one intelligence agency that maintains he didn't
have them. The UN Inspection Team that actually went and looked.
That's an inspection team, not an intelligence agency. And they had a long
track record of not finding weapons that were there.
DISARMING IRAQ
Mr. Blix Goes to Baghdad
A U.N. bureaucrat won't be willing to hand the world a war.
BY GARY MILHOLLIN
Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, November 26, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST
Hans Blix, by now a household name from New York to New
Delhi, begins his fateful mission this week: rooting out
Saddam Hussein's hidden programs for making nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons. Everyone should wish the
chief U.N. weapons inspector and his colleagues success, but
the odds are against it. Instead of disarmament, we are
likely to get a prolonged process of paper pushing.
The main concern is Mr. Blix himself. The 74-year-old Swede
was not the top choice for the job. The United States backed
Rolf Ekeus, the highly effective leader of the U.N. Special
Commission that inspected Iraq in the 1990s. But Iraq's
champions in the U.N. Security Council, Russia and France,
vetoed Mr. Ekeus as too aggressive. They put up Mr. Blix
instead. After ineffectual opposition from the Clinton
administration, Mr. Blix took over the present U.N.
inspection organization (called UNMOVIC) in January 2000.
There is a reason why Iraq's friends preferred Mr. Blix. He
already had an unsurpassed record of failure in dealing with
Saddam Hussein. From 1981 to 1997, Mr. Blix headed the
International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. body
responsible for inspecting nuclear sites around the
world--including Iraq's--to make sure they are not cranking
out atomic bombs. As late as 1990, the same year Iraq
invaded Kuwait, Mr. Blix's inspectors rated Iraq's
cooperation as "exemplary." But all the while Saddam was
running a vast A-bomb program under their very noses. Iraq
produced both plutonium and enriched uranium for nuclear
weapons in clear violation of the IAEA's rules. Some of the
work went on at the same places that were being inspected,
and was hidden with the help of an Iraqi official who was
himself a former IAEA inspector. (His knowledge of inspection
techniques helped dupe his former colleagues). Had the Gulf
War not intervened, Iraq might have made its first bomb
without anyone being the wiser. Mr. Blix's spokesman at
UNMOVIC has tried to explain away this embarrassment by
claiming that Mr. Blix had only limited powers under the
IAEA's rules. But the facts are otherwise. Mr. Blix had a
lot of discretion, and he always used it to reduce the
effectiveness of inspections.
For example, Iraq possessed more than 45 kilograms of highly
enriched uranium before the Gulf War, far more than the 25
kilograms that the IAEA officially said was enough to make
an atomic bomb. Iraq had imported the uranium from Russia
and France as reactor fuel, but it would work in a bomb just
as well. Now, when a country like Iraq has more than a bomb's
worth of weapon-usable uranium, the IAEA is supposed to
inspect it every three weeks, because that is all the time
it is supposed to take to fashion it into a warhead. Under
Mr. Blix, however, the IAEA was inspecting it only every six
months. Why? Because the uranium was stored in a number of
separate "material balance areas" (where the inspectors went
to measure it) and there was less than a bomb's worth in
each! The areas were only a mile or so apart, so the whole
thing was absurd. The stuff could be assembled in days, if
not hours. But rather than annoy the Iraqis with frequent
inspections, Mr. Blix chose the head-in-the-sand
approach--which the Iraqis were quick to exploit.
Immediately after the last six-month inspection before the
Gulf War, they diverted the uranium to a crash nuclear
weapon effort, which only the war prevented from succeeding.
Blix was not called "Inspector Clousseau" for nothing.
Another bullshit article. Where are the WMDs? Until you can come up
with them, it's all bullshit.
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Notice how all of a sudden we're looking for evidence of a "program"
instead of actual weapons? Now why in the world is that happening?
Because chemical and biological weapons can be easily hidden in small
amounts. The manufacturing equipment is harder to hide. Also, if you
retain the manufacturing capacity, you can even destroy your supply and then
rebuild it later. I don't want someone like Saddam to have even the
manufacturing capacity. Apparently YOU don't care. Keep arguing - all you
do is convince people we can't trust our national security to the left.
TONS. He supposedly had TONS. Where is it? Where are the
manufacturing plants? If they're so hard to hide, why haven't we
managed to find them?
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Well, Powell is the same jerk who kept Bush 41 from taking Saddam out in
the
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
first Gulf War like he should have. I have no clue why Bush 43 put
Powell
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
in his cabinet.
Condi Rice said the same thing. Is she a jerk, too?
In 1991 Condi Rice was Provost of Stanford University.
Hooray. I'm so proud of you. Condi made these statements in 2001.
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
3) The left made excuses for Saddam the same way they made excuses for
Stalin, so
What excuses did we make for Saddam? List them, please. Were they
any worse than the excuses Cheney made for Saddam when he tried to get
the embargo lifted so he could sell them more stuff?
Post by Founding Father
4) The left doesn't want Bush to win the war against terrorism any
more
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
than
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
they wanted Reagan to win the Cold War.
No, we just know that he's not fighting a war on terrorism. There
weren't terrorists in Iraq before the war.
You are a complete idiot, or a liar (perhaps both).
Really? And we were getting along so well.
Post by Founding Father
Ever hear of Abu Nidal, who was living in Bagdhad when he was captured by
U.S. forces?
How long since he committed a terrorist act?
I hate to tell you, but if you're harboring a known murderer, the fact that
the last murder (we know about) happened 10 years ago is not going to get
you acquitted.
So it's been a good long while? He was retired.
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
What about Salman Pak where terrorists were trained how to take over
planes
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
in a Boeing 707 fuselage?
Actually, that's where Saddam's counter-terrorism forces were being
trained to take over planes that had been hijacked.
Sure. There's a long record of Iraqi planes being highjacked.
Actually, there is. Iraq was bin Laden's #2 target behind us.

Actually, Bush did a damned good job of fulfilling bin Laden's dream
list. US out of Saudi Arabia, check. Saddam deposed, check. US in a
state of chaos, with the economy in a shambles and our reputation in
the world community shot, check. Hell of job W did for his boy.
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
How about Mohammed Atta meeting with the head of the Iraqi intelligence
service?
The Washington Post? Thanks, I'll get my news from someone who
doesn't work for the Rev. Moon.
The Washington Post? The paper of Woodward and Bernstein?
My apologies, I got the Post and the Times mixed up. I made a
mistake.
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
BTW, we were in complete control of Iraq's Kurdish Territory, so were
we allowing this to happen?
Air control is hardly complete control, as the Kurds tragically found out
when Saddam slaughtered them.
When we tragically encouraged them to rise up and then tragically gave
Saddam permission to fly gunships into the area to slaughter them.
Tragic.
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Report: Iraq, Al Qaeda Run Extremist Group In Kurdish Territory
Guerrillas Linked to Bin Laden Camps
By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 18, 2002; Page A12
A new report in the New Yorker magazine suggests that Iraqi intelligence
has
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
been in close touch with top officials in Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda
group
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
for
years, and that the two organizations jointly run a terrorist
organization
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
that
operates in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq.
How about Saddam paying the families of Palestinian terrorist who
deliberately target and murder innocent Israeli women and children
$25,000 (
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
that's 16 times the per capita income).
That's also substantially less than Saudi Arabia, Syria, and virtually
every other Arab nation was giving.
Post by Founding Father
Philippine terrorists claim link to Iraq
Marc Lerner
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published March 4, 2003
CEBU, Philippines " Islamist terrorists in the southern
Philippines
who have killed two American hostages in recent years say they are
receiving money from Iraqis close to President Saddam Hussein.
Hamsiraji Sali, a local commander of the terrorist group Abu
Sayyaf
on the remote southern island of Basilan, says he is getting nearly
$20,000 a year from supporters in Iraq.
People like you illustrate why we can NEVER AGAIN trust the left with our
national security.
Well, Bush has done such a great job.
Where is Osama?
Probably dead. If Clinton had done his job he'd be in prison (or known to
be dead) and 9/11 would never have happened.
Really? When Clinton tried to go after bin Laden, the right viciously
attacked him for trying to distract them from their holy mission to
investigate his penis.
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Where's Saddam?
No longer in power. If it were up to you he'd still be sitting in his kushy
palace murdering thousands of people every month.
Where is he?
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Where are the WMD?
I already addressed that. Now let me add this (from an opponent of the
The hell you did. Where are they?

And Friedman is a loon. Did you know we presently have more Iraqis in
prison than Saddam did?
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Why is Mullah Omar holding Taliban Summits to plan the fight against
us? Did he not get the memo that we beat them?
There was Japanese resistance after the end of WWII as well, despite the
declaration of their "divine" emperor.
If it were up to you, the Taliban would still be running Afghanistan, and
the women would be prevented from getting an education or even going out in
public without their husbands. And if they should kiss the wrong man, they
could be the subject of an "honor killing." That's what YOUR policies would
give the world.
Nope. The liberals were screaming about the Taliban for years.
Clinton wouldn't listen, mostly because every time he tried to do
something, the Republicans would start squawking about his penis
again.

BTW, all those Taliban policies? They're making a comeback in
Afghanistan. And are about to make a nice comeback in Iraq, if we
ever give them the vote. Which we all know isn't the point there.
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
We supposedly were there
to "liberate" the Iraqis, but fired Jay Garner when he said he wanted
to hold an election.
That was Powell's work again. He put the incompetent Bremer in place,
who
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
proceeded to dismantle the entire Iraqi regular army instead of using
them
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
to provide security, search the Mosques we're not allowed to enter, etc.
Ah, the Iraqi Army should have been in charge. That makes sense.
In charge, no. Help, yes.
Help? Help what? Help us keep their people from voting? Help
Halliburton plunder the nation?
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
And you would have put the Wehrmacht in charge of post-war Germany,
right? And may as well use the Gestapo and SS as a police force,
since they were already in charge....
I said regular army, not the Republican Guard. Don't you know the
difference?
You didn't say regular army, you said Iraqi Army, which was made up,
in part, of the Republican Guard.
Post by Founding Father
I read we DID use some members of the regular German army.
Patton was almost kicked out over it.
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
So why haven't the Iraqis been allowed to have an election yet? Too
busy selling Iraq to Bush's friends?
I see. We should let them vote, but we can't trust them to patrol their own
streets?
I didn't say that. You're the one that said the Iraqi Army should
have been in charge. Heck, we've even dismantled the police.

Do you realise they still don't have power in most of Baghdad? That's
Bechtel's contract. Billion dollars, and no power.
Post by Founding Father
How long did it take for America to complete its constitution after the
revolution?
Well, when Iraq has a revolution, you can make those comparisons.

Actually, they tried once, but GHW Bush decided to let Saddam put it
down in a brutal bloodbath. Nice of him.
Post by Founding Father
It's a damn good thing leftists weren't in charge of WWII and its aftermath.
I can just see the questions from the press: President Roosevelt, how long
will it take? How much will it cost? What's the exit strategy? How long
will it take to rebuild Europe? How much will it cost? ...
Ah, yes, the evil question of Exit Strategy. That's only the way the
right attacked Clinton repeatedly. But it's no good now, is it?

Quit comparing this to WWII. It's pathetic, and it's insulting to the
patriots who gave their lives for freedom instead of oil and
Halliburton contracts.
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
At this point, it's fairly clear that our troops are dying to keep the
Iraqis from voting. Some liberation.
Answer?
The answer is that was a stupid comment. We're there to help make them
secure and rebuild the infrastructure, not to keep them from voting. Only
in your little fantasy mind can a country go from absolute despotism to full
democracy and a couple of months.
Really? Most of the propaganda in the buildup to the war was that
they'd be voting within 6 months. I guess the Bush administration is
full of fantasists too, huh?
--
lazarus

"Folly it may seem," said Haldir. "Indeed, in nothing is the power
of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that
divides all those who still oppose him." -- J.R.R. Tolkien
STKWVR
2003-09-25 11:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by lazarus
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 06:20:11 GMT, David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by r***@rrogers.com
Post by lazarus
Such as his vicious response to the Marine Barracks bombing in
Beirut,
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by David Johnston
Post by r***@rrogers.com
Post by lazarus
where he immediately pulled out and invaded Grenada? Wag the
dog....
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by David Johnston
Post by r***@rrogers.com
Lets see; Bush attacks and invades Afghanistan over 9/11 and the
left
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by David Johnston
Post by r***@rrogers.com
bitches.
Most of the left waved pom-poms.
Yeah, we didn't get really pissed until he lied us into a war with
Iraq.
1) He didn't lie.
Really? Where are the WMDs?
We don't know, yet. Some intelligence reports indicate they were moved to
Syria and/or Lebanon before the war. Others say he destroyed them. But
there's not one intelligence agency I know of that maintained he had none.
So all evidence pointed to him having them. We may have been wrong, but
that doesn't make it a lie.
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
2) On the one hand leftists complain about not "connecting the dots"
before
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
9/11. But there was far more evidence of WMD in Iraq than there was
evidence of an impending attack before 9/11. The left apparently wants
us
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
to wait for tens or hundreds of thousands dead before doing anything.
Is that the evidence that Colin Powell said didn't exist?
"And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant
capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable
to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our
policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and
these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are
always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried
out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the
Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass
destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue."
That's from February of 2001, Powell's remarks with the Egyptian
Foreign Minister.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm
Well, Powell is the same jerk who kept Bush 41 from taking Saddam out in the
first Gulf War like he should have. I have no clue why Bush 43 put Powell
in his cabinet.
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
3) The left made excuses for Saddam the same way they made excuses for
Stalin, so
What excuses did we make for Saddam? List them, please. Were they
any worse than the excuses Cheney made for Saddam when he tried to get
the embargo lifted so he could sell them more stuff?
Post by Founding Father
4) The left doesn't want Bush to win the war against terrorism any more
than
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
they wanted Reagan to win the Cold War.
No, we just know that he's not fighting a war on terrorism. There
weren't terrorists in Iraq before the war.
You are a complete idiot, or a liar (perhaps both).
Ever hear of Abu Nidal, who was living in Bagdhad when he was captured by
U.S. forces?
What about Salman Pak where terrorists were trained how to take over planes
in a Boeing 707 fuselage?
How about Mohammed Atta meeting with the head of the Iraqi intelligence
service?
Report: Iraq, Al Qaeda Run Extremist Group In Kurdish Territory
Guerrillas Linked to Bin Laden Camps
By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 18, 2002; Page A12
A new report in the New Yorker magazine suggests that Iraqi intelligence has
been in close touch with top officials in Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda group
for
years, and that the two organizations jointly run a terrorist organization
that
operates in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq.
How about Saddam paying the families of Palestinian terrorist who
deliberately target and murder innocent Israeli women and children $25,000 (
that's 16 times the per capita income).
Philippine terrorists claim link to Iraq
Marc Lerner
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published March 4, 2003
CEBU, Philippines " Islamist terrorists in the southern
Philippines
who have killed two American hostages in recent years say they are
receiving money from Iraqis close to President Saddam Hussein.
Hamsiraji Sali, a local commander of the terrorist group Abu
Sayyaf
on the remote southern island of Basilan, says he is getting nearly
$20,000 a year from supporters in Iraq.
People like you illustrate why we can NEVER AGAIN trust the left with our
national security.
Post by lazarus
We supposedly were there
to "liberate" the Iraqis, but fired Jay Garner when he said he wanted
to hold an election.
That was Powell's work again. He put the incompetent Bremer in place, who
proceeded to dismantle the entire Iraqi regular army instead of using them
to provide security, search the Mosques we're not allowed to enter, etc.
Post by lazarus
At this point, it's fairly clear that our troops are dying to keep the
Iraqis from voting. Some liberation.
--
lazarus
"Folly it may seem," said Haldir. "Indeed, in nothing is the power
of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that
divides all those who still oppose him." -- J.R.R. Tolkien
Please don't disrupt the ignorant petty-fest by posting facts. You're
ruining the entertainment!
William December Starr
2003-09-25 12:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Founding Father
3) The left made excuses for Saddam the same way they made excuses
for Stalin, so
This isn't remotely true. You're either an idiot or a deliberate
liar. Either way, please go away.

*plonk*

-- William December Starr <***@panix.com>
Founding Father
2003-09-26 07:39:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by William December Starr
Post by Founding Father
3) The left made excuses for Saddam the same way they made excuses
for Stalin, so
This isn't remotely true.
Oh? Which part.

You're either an idiot or a deliberate
Post by William December Starr
liar. Either way, please go away.
Some people, especially leftists, can't handle the truth.
Linda Harms
2003-09-22 17:02:11 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@telusplanet.net>, ***@telusplanet.net
says...
Post by David Johnston
Post by r***@rrogers.com
Post by lazarus
Such as his vicious response to the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut,
where he immediately pulled out and invaded Grenada? Wag the dog....
Lets see; Bush attacks and invades Afghanistan over 9/11 and the left
bitches.
Most of the left waved pom-poms.
That's how I remember it, too. War against Afghanistan was supported,
because the Taliban openly supported Al Quaida.

The invasion of Iraq is not supported because it was not justified. It
was engineered to deflect the US public's attention from the failure to
find/kill Bin Laden, and to fill the bank accounts of Cheney and his
cronies at Halliburton.

************************************
Linda Harms
New York, NY

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5
Cory
2003-09-22 17:07:39 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:02:11 -0400, Linda Harms said...
Post by Linda Harms
The invasion of Iraq is not supported because it was not justified. It
was engineered to deflect the US public's attention from the failure to
find/kill Bin Laden, and to fill the bank accounts of Cheney and his
cronies at Halliburton.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25571-2003Sep17.html

--- Cory
Linda Harms
2003-09-22 20:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cory
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:02:11 -0400, Linda Harms said...
Post by Linda Harms
The invasion of Iraq is not supported because it was not justified. It
was engineered to deflect the US public's attention from the failure to
find/kill Bin Laden, and to fill the bank accounts of Cheney and his
cronies at Halliburton.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25571-2003Sep17.html
--- Cory
I think that's called "back pedaling."

************************************
Linda Harms
New York, NY

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5
Cory
2003-09-22 22:39:21 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:35:09 -0400, Linda Harms said...
Post by Linda Harms
Post by Cory
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:02:11 -0400, Linda Harms said...
Post by Linda Harms
The invasion of Iraq is not supported because it was not justified. It
was engineered to deflect the US public's attention from the failure to
find/kill Bin Laden, and to fill the bank accounts of Cheney and his
cronies at Halliburton.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25571-2003Sep17.html
--- Cory
I think that's called "back pedaling."
Ya know what I honestly think?? I think some news organization was about
to blow Dumbya's initial reasons for invading Iraq to smithereens, so
Dumbya had no other choice but to admit, on the record, in some pathetic
attempt to persuade the public to continue supporting him (again), that
his administration lied (again). Too bad for him it won't work this
time.

--- Cory
--
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25571-2003Sep17.html

My e-mail address shouldn't have my first name in it.
Linda Harms
2003-09-23 14:18:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cory
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:35:09 -0400, Linda Harms said...
Post by Linda Harms
Post by Cory
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:02:11 -0400, Linda Harms said...
Post by Linda Harms
The invasion of Iraq is not supported because it was not justified. It
was engineered to deflect the US public's attention from the failure to
find/kill Bin Laden, and to fill the bank accounts of Cheney and his
cronies at Halliburton.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25571-2003Sep17.html
--- Cory
I think that's called "back pedaling."
Ya know what I honestly think?? I think some news organization was about
to blow Dumbya's initial reasons for invading Iraq to smithereens, so
Dumbya had no other choice but to admit, on the record, in some pathetic
attempt to persuade the public to continue supporting him (again), that
his administration lied (again). Too bad for him it won't work this
time.
--- Cory
In a perverse way, I actually feel a little sorry for Dubbya today.
He's going to the UN, hat in hand, asking them for money and troups to
rebuild a country that he invaded a few months ago after telling the
same UN he didn't care if they approved or not! I would be so ashamed
of myself if I were in his shoes.

I mean, he sends troups in there, with no clue, no plan, as to how to
secure the place so that it can function after he's done. He lets the
Iraqis run rampant through the government ministries, lets them trash
the offices, destroy the files, decimate the infrastructure.

Then he goes back to the UN, asking for money to fix what he destroyed.
And this is money, mind you, that will be turned over to the folks at
Halliburton, who "won" the reconstruction contracts in a secret, no-
competition deal before the invasion was launched. I don't know how he
can do this with a straight face.

P.S. I live 2 blocks from the UN and it's a nightmare. Streets are
blocked off, traffic is at a standstill, and today it's pouring rain.
Last night it took me 45 minutes to get from 59th Street to 42nd Street
on the Lexington Avenue bus. (Could not walk due to knee injury, but
that's another story.) The bus passes by the Waldorf Astoria hotel,
where US presidents always stay when they're in town. I frankly don't
know how someone would survive if they were injured or sick and needed
an ambulance to take them to a hospital in a hurry.
--
************************************
Linda Harms
New York, NY

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5
Cory
2003-09-23 16:32:06 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:18:08 -0400, Linda Harms said...
<snip... this is about Bush...>
Post by Linda Harms
he goes back to the UN, asking for money to fix what he destroyed.
And this is money, mind you, that will be turned over to the folks at
Halliburton, who "won" the reconstruction contracts in a secret, no-
competition deal before the invasion was launched. I don't know how he
can do this with a straight face.
He probably lied to 'em. He's lied to the American people so many times
about Iraq that I bet he's starting to believe the BULLSHIT he's spewing,
and thus has no problem shoveling it to the U.N..

--- Cory
--
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25571-2003Sep17.html

My e-mail address shouldn't have my first name in it.
lazarus
2003-09-23 22:45:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cory
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:18:08 -0400, Linda Harms said...
<snip... this is about Bush...>
Post by Linda Harms
he goes back to the UN, asking for money to fix what he destroyed.
And this is money, mind you, that will be turned over to the folks at
Halliburton, who "won" the reconstruction contracts in a secret, no-
competition deal before the invasion was launched. I don't know how he
can do this with a straight face.
He probably lied to 'em. He's lied to the American people so many times
about Iraq that I bet he's starting to believe the BULLSHIT he's spewing,
and thus has no problem shoveling it to the U.N..
--- Cory
Yup, he did. Talked about WMD (where are they, anyway?).

The hilarious bit was the reception he got. Textbook definition of
"polite applause" at the end of his speech, which spent an inordinate
amount of time on the sex slave trade.
--
lazarus

"Folly it may seem," said Haldir. "Indeed, in nothing is the power
of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that
divides all those who still oppose him." -- J.R.R. Tolkien
Linda Harms
2003-09-24 15:51:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by lazarus
Post by Cory
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:18:08 -0400, Linda Harms said...
<snip... this is about Bush...>
Post by Linda Harms
he goes back to the UN, asking for money to fix what he destroyed.
And this is money, mind you, that will be turned over to the folks at
Halliburton, who "won" the reconstruction contracts in a secret, no-
competition deal before the invasion was launched. I don't know how he
can do this with a straight face.
He probably lied to 'em. He's lied to the American people so many times
about Iraq that I bet he's starting to believe the BULLSHIT he's spewing,
and thus has no problem shoveling it to the U.N..
--- Cory
Yup, he did. Talked about WMD (where are they, anyway?).
The hilarious bit was the reception he got. Textbook definition of
"polite applause" at the end of his speech, which spent an inordinate
amount of time on the sex slave trade.
And why is Bush now suddenly bringing the sex tourism industry into the
debate? Is he out of his friggin' mind? Why was this never mentioned
before?

************************************
Linda Harms
New York, NY

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5
lazarus
2003-09-25 00:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linda Harms
Post by lazarus
Post by Cory
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:18:08 -0400, Linda Harms said...
<snip... this is about Bush...>
Post by Linda Harms
he goes back to the UN, asking for money to fix what he destroyed.
And this is money, mind you, that will be turned over to the folks at
Halliburton, who "won" the reconstruction contracts in a secret, no-
competition deal before the invasion was launched. I don't know how he
can do this with a straight face.
He probably lied to 'em. He's lied to the American people so many times
about Iraq that I bet he's starting to believe the BULLSHIT he's spewing,
and thus has no problem shoveling it to the U.N..
--- Cory
Yup, he did. Talked about WMD (where are they, anyway?).
The hilarious bit was the reception he got. Textbook definition of
"polite applause" at the end of his speech, which spent an inordinate
amount of time on the sex slave trade.
And why is Bush now suddenly bringing the sex tourism industry into the
debate? Is he out of his friggin' mind? Why was this never mentioned
before?
If he wants to bring it under his control, he should call his Daddy.
One of his Daddy's subsidiary companies, DynCorp, has a bad rep for
having their workers partake of the sex trade overseas.
--
lazarus

"Folly it may seem," said Haldir. "Indeed, in nothing is the power
of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that
divides all those who still oppose him." -- J.R.R. Tolkien
STKWVR
2003-09-25 00:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by lazarus
Post by Linda Harms
Post by lazarus
Post by Cory
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:18:08 -0400, Linda Harms said...
<snip... this is about Bush...>
Post by Linda Harms
he goes back to the UN, asking for money to fix what he destroyed.
And this is money, mind you, that will be turned over to the folks at
Halliburton, who "won" the reconstruction contracts in a secret, no-
competition deal before the invasion was launched. I don't know how he
can do this with a straight face.
He probably lied to 'em. He's lied to the American people so many times
about Iraq that I bet he's starting to believe the BULLSHIT he's spewing,
and thus has no problem shoveling it to the U.N..
--- Cory
Yup, he did. Talked about WMD (where are they, anyway?).
The hilarious bit was the reception he got. Textbook definition of
"polite applause" at the end of his speech, which spent an inordinate
amount of time on the sex slave trade.
And why is Bush now suddenly bringing the sex tourism industry into the
debate? Is he out of his friggin' mind? Why was this never mentioned
before?
If he wants to bring it under his control, he should call his Daddy.
One of his Daddy's subsidiary companies, DynCorp, has a bad rep for
having their workers partake of the sex trade overseas.
It's so amusing to sit back and watch all of you bolster each other's
asinine egos. Please do continue...
Randy
2003-09-25 01:04:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by STKWVR
Post by lazarus
Post by Linda Harms
Post by lazarus
Post by Cory
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:18:08 -0400, Linda Harms said...
<snip... this is about Bush...>
Post by Linda Harms
he goes back to the UN, asking for money to fix what he destroyed.
And this is money, mind you, that will be turned over to the folks at
Halliburton, who "won" the reconstruction contracts in a secret, no-
competition deal before the invasion was launched. I don't know how he
can do this with a straight face.
He probably lied to 'em. He's lied to the American people so many times
about Iraq that I bet he's starting to believe the BULLSHIT he's spewing,
and thus has no problem shoveling it to the U.N..
--- Cory
Yup, he did. Talked about WMD (where are they, anyway?).
The hilarious bit was the reception he got. Textbook definition of
"polite applause" at the end of his speech, which spent an inordinate
amount of time on the sex slave trade.
And why is Bush now suddenly bringing the sex tourism industry into the
debate? Is he out of his friggin' mind? Why was this never mentioned
before?
If he wants to bring it under his control, he should call his Daddy.
One of his Daddy's subsidiary companies, DynCorp, has a bad rep for
having their workers partake of the sex trade overseas.
It's so amusing to sit back and watch all of you bolster each other's
asinine egos. Please do continue...
You mean like the post you just made?
Linda Harms
2003-09-25 15:12:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by STKWVR
Post by lazarus
Post by Linda Harms
Post by lazarus
Post by Cory
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:18:08 -0400, Linda Harms said...
<snip... this is about Bush...>
Post by Linda Harms
he goes back to the UN, asking for money to fix what he destroyed.
And this is money, mind you, that will be turned over to the folks at
Halliburton, who "won" the reconstruction contracts in a secret, no-
competition deal before the invasion was launched. I don't know how he
can do this with a straight face.
He probably lied to 'em. He's lied to the American people so many times
about Iraq that I bet he's starting to believe the BULLSHIT he's spewing,
and thus has no problem shoveling it to the U.N..
--- Cory
Yup, he did. Talked about WMD (where are they, anyway?).
The hilarious bit was the reception he got. Textbook definition of
"polite applause" at the end of his speech, which spent an inordinate
amount of time on the sex slave trade.
And why is Bush now suddenly bringing the sex tourism industry into the
debate? Is he out of his friggin' mind? Why was this never mentioned
before?
If he wants to bring it under his control, he should call his Daddy.
One of his Daddy's subsidiary companies, DynCorp, has a bad rep for
having their workers partake of the sex trade overseas.
It's so amusing to sit back and watch all of you bolster each other's
asinine egos. Please do continue...
I suppose it serves as a distraction for you, so that you don't have to
think about what is actually going on in the world. Enjoy yourself.

************************************
Linda Harms
New York, NY

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5
Georgiana Gates
2003-09-25 02:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linda Harms
And why is Bush now suddenly bringing the sex tourism industry into the
debate? Is he out of his friggin' mind? Why was this never mentioned
before?
************************************
Linda Harms
New York, NY
Oh, this one is easy. Karl Rove has calculated that talking about it
will maximize Bush's chance of reelection.
Georgiana Gates
2003-09-24 02:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linda Harms
In a perverse way, I actually feel a little sorry for Dubbya today.
He's going to the UN, hat in hand, asking them for money and troups to
rebuild a country that he invaded a few months ago after telling the
same UN he didn't care if they approved or not! I would be so ashamed
of myself if I were in his shoes.
I mean, he sends troups in there, with no clue, no plan, as to how to
secure the place so that it can function after he's done. He lets the
Iraqis run rampant through the government ministries, lets them trash
the offices, destroy the files, decimate the infrastructure.
Why are we sending in troups? Are we going to put on shows?
Post by Linda Harms
Then he goes back to the UN, asking for money to fix what he destroyed.
And this is money, mind you, that will be turned over to the folks at
Halliburton, who "won" the reconstruction contracts in a secret, no-
competition deal before the invasion was launched. I don't know how he
can do this with a straight face.
One of the things we're supposed to do is to fix the Iraqi electric
grid. For about the same amount of money (give or take a billion) we
could fix our Eastern electric grid. We could pay Halliburton the
same amount of money they'd get in Iraq and see the benefits here.

BTW, a number of conservatives have said that things are going much
better in Iraq than reported, presumably due to the liberal press. If
things are going so well, why did Bush go to the UN?
CosmicDawg
2003-09-24 06:12:04 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 21:56:12 -0500, Georgiana Gates
Post by Georgiana Gates
Post by Linda Harms
In a perverse way, I actually feel a little sorry for Dubbya today.
He's going to the UN, hat in hand, asking them for money and troups to
rebuild a country that he invaded a few months ago after telling the
same UN he didn't care if they approved or not! I would be so ashamed
of myself if I were in his shoes.
I mean, he sends troups in there, with no clue, no plan, as to how to
secure the place so that it can function after he's done. He lets the
Iraqis run rampant through the government ministries, lets them trash
the offices, destroy the files, decimate the infrastructure.
Why are we sending in troups? Are we going to put on shows?
Post by Linda Harms
Then he goes back to the UN, asking for money to fix what he destroyed.
And this is money, mind you, that will be turned over to the folks at
Halliburton, who "won" the reconstruction contracts in a secret, no-
competition deal before the invasion was launched. I don't know how he
can do this with a straight face.
One of the things we're supposed to do is to fix the Iraqi electric
grid. For about the same amount of money (give or take a billion) we
could fix our Eastern electric grid. We could pay Halliburton the
same amount of money they'd get in Iraq and see the benefits here.
BTW, a number of conservatives have said that things are going much
better in Iraq than reported, presumably due to the liberal press. If
things are going so well, why did Bush go to the UN?
The conservatives are just doing spin spin spin.
--
Arrest rate for Washington DC police officers: 19 per 1000
Arrest rate for New York City police officers: 3 per 1000
Arrest rate for Florida concealed handgun permit holders: 0.9 per 1000

Which one should we disarm?
Founding Father
2003-09-25 05:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cory
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:35:09 -0400, Linda Harms said...
Post by Linda Harms
Post by Cory
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:02:11 -0400, Linda Harms said...
Post by Linda Harms
The invasion of Iraq is not supported because it was not justified.
It
Post by Cory
Post by Linda Harms
Post by Cory
Post by Linda Harms
was engineered to deflect the US public's attention from the failure to
find/kill Bin Laden, and to fill the bank accounts of Cheney and his
cronies at Halliburton.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25571-2003Sep17.html
--- Cory
I think that's called "back pedaling."
Ya know what I honestly think?? I think some news organization was about
to blow Dumbya's initial reasons for invading Iraq to smithereens, so
Dumbya had no other choice but to admit, on the record, in some pathetic
attempt to persuade the public to continue supporting him (again), that
his administration lied (again). Too bad for him it won't work this
time.
You mean the same leftist pro-Saddamite news organizations that routinely
lied about the horrors of the Saddam regime (like they lied about the
deliberate famine in the USSR) and who continue to lie about what's going on
now - helping to kill our soldiers?

http://editorandpublisher.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&expir
e=&urlID=7540151&fb=Y&partnerID=60

SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
John Burns: 'There Is Corruption in Our Business'
'NY Times' Writer on the Terror of Baghdad

Terror, totalitarian states, and their ways are nothing new to
me, but I felt from the start that this was in a category by
itself, with the possible exception in the present world of
North Korea. I felt that that was the central truth that has to
be told about this place. It was also the essential truth that
was untold by the vast majority of correspondents here. Why?
Because they judged that the only way they could keep themselves
in play here was to pretend that it was okay.

There were correspondents who thought it appropriate to seek the
approbation of the people who governed their lives. This was the
ministry of information, and particularly the director of the
ministry. By taking him out for long candlelit dinners, plying
him with sweet cakes, plying him with mobile phones at $600 each
for members of his family, and giving bribes of thousands of
dollars. Senior members of the information ministry took
hundreds of thousands of dollars of bribes from these television
correspondents who then behaved as if they were in Belgium. They
never mentioned the function of minders. Never mentioned terror.

In one case, a correspondent actually went to the Internet
Center at the Al-Rashid Hotel and printed out copies of his and
other people's stories -- mine included -- specifically in order
to be able to show the difference between himself and the
others. He wanted to show what a good boy he was compared to
this enemy of the state. He was with a major American newspaper.



http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0903/22international.html?urac=n&
urvf=10642373241680.28346530679213333
Media's dark cloud a danger
Falsely bleak reports reduce our chances of success in Iraq

By JIM MARSHALL

I'm afraid the news media are hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon
the mistakes, the ambushes, the soldiers killed, the wounded, the Blumbergs.
Fair enough. But it is not balancing this bad news with "the rest of the
story," the progress made daily, the good news. The falsely bleak picture
weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens
our enemy.

We may need a few credible Baghdad Bobs to undo the harm done by our media.
I'm afraid it is killing our troops.


-- U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) of Macon, a Vietnam combat veteran, is a
member of the House Armed Services Committee.

http://foi.missouri.edu/jouratrisk/newswekept.html

The News We Kept to Ourselves

By Eason Jordan
The New York Times
April 11, 2003

ATLANTA - Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the
government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with
Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw
and heard - awful things that could not be reported because doing so would
have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad
staff.

Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless
still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by
Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which
included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months,
forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led
offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A
plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her
family's home.

I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam
Hussein's regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more
gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these
stories can be told freely.




Those media?
lazarus
2003-09-25 06:51:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Founding Father
Post by Cory
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:35:09 -0400, Linda Harms said...
Post by Linda Harms
Post by Cory
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:02:11 -0400, Linda Harms said...
Post by Linda Harms
The invasion of Iraq is not supported because it was not justified.
It
Post by Cory
Post by Linda Harms
Post by Cory
Post by Linda Harms
was engineered to deflect the US public's attention from the failure
to
Post by Cory
Post by Linda Harms
Post by Cory
Post by Linda Harms
find/kill Bin Laden, and to fill the bank accounts of Cheney and his
cronies at Halliburton.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25571-2003Sep17.html
--- Cory
I think that's called "back pedaling."
Ya know what I honestly think?? I think some news organization was about
to blow Dumbya's initial reasons for invading Iraq to smithereens, so
Dumbya had no other choice but to admit, on the record, in some pathetic
attempt to persuade the public to continue supporting him (again), that
his administration lied (again). Too bad for him it won't work this
time.
You mean the same leftist pro-Saddamite news organizations that routinely
lied about the horrors of the Saddam regime (like they lied about the
deliberate famine in the USSR) and who continue to lie about what's going on
now - helping to kill our soldiers?
Or is that the media that admitted they muzzled the real news during
the war, the bad news the administration didn't want out?

If the media is so pro-Saddam, it's a bit surprising that NBC was just
attacked today.

Oh, and if the war is going so well, why did Bush have to slither into
the UN yesterday to beg for help?
--
lazarus

"Folly it may seem," said Haldir. "Indeed, in nothing is the power
of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that
divides all those who still oppose him." -- J.R.R. Tolkien
Founding Father
2003-09-25 11:06:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by Cory
Ya know what I honestly think?? I think some news organization was about
to blow Dumbya's initial reasons for invading Iraq to smithereens, so
Dumbya had no other choice but to admit, on the record, in some pathetic
attempt to persuade the public to continue supporting him (again), that
his administration lied (again). Too bad for him it won't work this
time.
You mean the same leftist pro-Saddamite news organizations that routinely
lied about the horrors of the Saddam regime (like they lied about the
deliberate famine in the USSR) and who continue to lie about what's going on
now - helping to kill our soldiers?
Or is that the media that admitted they muzzled the real news during
the war, the bad news the administration didn't want out?
That silly idea is refuted by people like New York Times foreign
correspondent, John Burns
http://editorandpublisher.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&expir
e=&urlID=7540151&fb=Y&partnerID=60
and CNN's Eason Jordan http://foi.missouri.edu/jouratrisk/newswekept.html
Post by lazarus
If the media is so pro-Saddam, it's a bit surprising that NBC was just
attacked today.
They're glad to kill any Americans. They'd even kill an ally like you.
Post by lazarus
Oh, and if the war is going so well, why did Bush have to slither into
the UN yesterday to beg for help?
To make it harder for the leftists in the U.S. to undermine our victory and
to make it clearer the U.S. is not in Iraq as an occupying power.
lazarus
2003-09-25 12:15:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cory
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by Cory
Ya know what I honestly think?? I think some news organization was
about
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by Cory
to blow Dumbya's initial reasons for invading Iraq to smithereens, so
Dumbya had no other choice but to admit, on the record, in some
pathetic
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by Cory
attempt to persuade the public to continue supporting him (again), that
his administration lied (again). Too bad for him it won't work this
time.
You mean the same leftist pro-Saddamite news organizations that routinely
lied about the horrors of the Saddam regime (like they lied about the
deliberate famine in the USSR) and who continue to lie about what's going
on
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
now - helping to kill our soldiers?
Or is that the media that admitted they muzzled the real news during
the war, the bad news the administration didn't want out?
That silly idea is refuted by people like New York Times foreign
correspondent, John Burns
http://editorandpublisher.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&expir
e=&urlID=7540151&fb=Y&partnerID=60
and CNN's Eason Jordan http://foi.missouri.edu/jouratrisk/newswekept.html
That silly idea was put forth by one of the most well-respected
journalists in the world today. Why not show me some refutation of
her comments?
Post by Cory
Post by lazarus
If the media is so pro-Saddam, it's a bit surprising that NBC was just
attacked today.
They're glad to kill any Americans. They'd even kill an ally like you.
If they'll gladly kill Americans, what does that say about your
liberation effort? Not very grateful, are they?
Post by Cory
Post by lazarus
Oh, and if the war is going so well, why did Bush have to slither into
the UN yesterday to beg for help?
To make it harder for the leftists in the U.S. to undermine our victory and
to make it clearer the U.S. is not in Iraq as an occupying power.
LOL. Good try at spin. Actually, it was because we desperately need
more troops and money, since the country's going broke due to the Boy
King's idiotic economic policies, and the troops are stretched to the
breaking point.

Besides, he needs more bodies for the next war. What's he going to
do, start a draft?
--
lazarus

"Folly it may seem," said Haldir. "Indeed, in nothing is the power
of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that
divides all those who still oppose him." -- J.R.R. Tolkien
Founding Father
2003-09-26 07:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Founding Father
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Or is that the media that admitted they muzzled the real news during
the war, the bad news the administration didn't want out?
That silly idea is refuted by people like New York Times foreign
correspondent, John Burns
http://editorandpublisher.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&expi
r
Post by Founding Father
Post by Founding Father
e=&urlID=7540151&fb=Y&partnerID=60
and CNN's Eason Jordan http://foi.missouri.edu/jouratrisk/newswekept.html
That silly idea was put forth by one of the most well-respected
journalists in the world today. Why not show me some refutation of
her comments?
You mean Amanpour's complaint that reporting from Iraq is too pro-American?
Post by Founding Father
Post by Founding Father
If the media is so pro-Saddam, it's a bit surprising that NBC was just
Post by lazarus
attacked today.
They're glad to kill any Americans. They'd even kill an ally like you.
If they'll gladly kill Americans, what does that say about your
liberation effort? Not very grateful, are they?
Those are your friends - the hardcore Saddam supporters. We have a greater
proportion of the population supporting us in Iraq than the patriots had in
the American Revolution.
Post by Founding Father
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Oh, and if the war is going so well, why did Bush have to slither into
the UN yesterday to beg for help?
To make it harder for the leftists in the U.S. to undermine our victory and
to make it clearer the U.S. is not in Iraq as an occupying power.
LOL. Good try at spin. Actually, it was because we desperately need
more troops and money, since the country's going broke due to the Boy
King's idiotic economic policies, and the troops are stretched to the
breaking point.
Besides, he needs more bodies for the next war. What's he going to
do, start a draft?
We need more troops because traitor Clinton - in typical leftist fashion -
dismantled the military. And we need to keep some divisions ready should
they be needed to deal with a nuclear North Korea, the other great foreign
policy "success" of Clinton.

"We sleep soundly in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do
violence on our behalf." - Winston Churchill

"We rest uneasy at night because soft leftist men stand ready to do
appeasement on behalf of our enemies." - Me
lazarus
2003-09-26 07:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Founding Father
Post by Founding Father
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Or is that the media that admitted they muzzled the real news during
the war, the bad news the administration didn't want out?
That silly idea is refuted by people like New York Times foreign
correspondent, John Burns
http://editorandpublisher.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&expi
r
Post by Founding Father
Post by Founding Father
e=&urlID=7540151&fb=Y&partnerID=60
and CNN's Eason Jordan http://foi.missouri.edu/jouratrisk/newswekept.html
That silly idea was put forth by one of the most well-respected
journalists in the world today. Why not show me some refutation of
her comments?
You mean Amanpour's complaint that reporting from Iraq is too pro-American?
No, her complaint that the media covered up valid news to make the war
look better for Bush.
Post by Founding Father
Post by Founding Father
Post by Founding Father
If the media is so pro-Saddam, it's a bit surprising that NBC was just
Post by lazarus
attacked today.
They're glad to kill any Americans. They'd even kill an ally like you.
If they'll gladly kill Americans, what does that say about your
liberation effort? Not very grateful, are they?
Those are your friends - the hardcore Saddam supporters. We have a greater
proportion of the population supporting us in Iraq than the patriots had in
the American Revolution.
My friends? Find one post of mine, ever, in which I said I thought
Saddam was a good person.

And quit making comparisons to the American Revolution. Unless you
can tell me what occupying force appointed the early leaders of
America and kept Americans from voting.
Post by Founding Father
Post by Founding Father
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Oh, and if the war is going so well, why did Bush have to slither into
the UN yesterday to beg for help?
To make it harder for the leftists in the U.S. to undermine our victory
and
Post by Founding Father
Post by Founding Father
to make it clearer the U.S. is not in Iraq as an occupying power.
LOL. Good try at spin. Actually, it was because we desperately need
more troops and money, since the country's going broke due to the Boy
King's idiotic economic policies, and the troops are stretched to the
breaking point.
Besides, he needs more bodies for the next war. What's he going to
do, start a draft?
We need more troops because traitor Clinton - in typical leftist fashion -
dismantled the military. And we need to keep some divisions ready should
they be needed to deal with a nuclear North Korea, the other great foreign
policy "success" of Clinton.
How, then, did the military do such a great job? Are you saying that
the military wasn't up to the mission?

And wasn't it the Republican Congress that passed the budgets? Y'all
want to take credit for a balanced budget, but blame Clinton for
"dismantling" the military?
Post by Founding Father
"We sleep soundly in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do
violence on our behalf." - Winston Churchill
"We rest uneasy at night because soft leftist men stand ready to do
appeasement on behalf of our enemies." - Me
You're a loon. Where were your rough men during Viet Nam? Bush was
AWOL. Rush? Lott? DeLay? Where were they? Do you really want to
play war hero with this? I'll put up Kerry and Clark and Kerrey and
Cleland. What do you have besides McCain? Cheney decided he had
"other priorities" during the war. Some "rough man".

How about soft men like Max Cleland, who left three limbs in Viet Nam?
Bob Kerrey, who won a CMH? Yeah, soft men. Kerry won a Bronze Star
and three Purple Hearts, is that soft?

What about Wolfowitz? Perle? What did they do during the war?

Come on, tell me more about these "rough men". Here's an easy example
for you. Bush got his daddy to pull strings to get him in a Champagne
Unit of the TANG. JFK got his daddy to pull strings to get him into a
combat unit.

This is becoming sickening. Our troops are dying over there to give
you and the rest of your bloodthirsty chickenhawk gang wargasms.

If Bush was worried about security, why did he cut funding to the
First Responders who truly are on the front lines, the firemen and
policemen and paramedics?
--
lazarus

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president,
or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American Public." -- Theodore Roosevelt
Georgiana Gates
2003-09-27 02:52:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
We need more troops because traitor Clinton - in typical leftist fashion -
dismantled the military. And we need to keep some divisions ready should
they be needed to deal with a nuclear North Korea, the other great foreign
policy "success" of Clinton.
How, then, did the military do such a great job? Are you saying that
the military wasn't up to the mission?
And wasn't it the Republican Congress that passed the budgets? Y'all
want to take credit for a balanced budget, but blame Clinton for
"dismantling" the military?
Bush appointed as Secretary of the Army a former Enron executive,
Thomas White. White promised at his confirmation hearing that he "would
run the Army like Enron". White actually was quite lucky - because of
his government service he was required to sell his Enron stock and
did very well.
Post by lazarus
If Bush was worried about security, why did he cut funding to the
First Responders who truly are on the front lines, the firemen and
policemen and paramedics?
Absolutely right.
Post by lazarus
--
lazarus
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president,
or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American Public." -- Theodore Roosevelt
Founding Father
2003-10-06 08:58:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Or is that the media that admitted they muzzled the real news during
the war, the bad news the administration didn't want out?
That silly idea is refuted by people like New York Times foreign
correspondent, John Burns
http://editorandpublisher.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&exp
i
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
r
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
e=&urlID=7540151&fb=Y&partnerID=60
and CNN's Eason Jordan
http://foi.missouri.edu/jouratrisk/newswekept.html
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
That silly idea was put forth by one of the most well-respected
journalists in the world today. Why not show me some refutation of
her comments?
You mean Amanpour's complaint that reporting from Iraq is too
pro-American?
Post by lazarus
No, her complaint that the media covered up valid news to make the war
look better for Bush.
Oh sure. The same media that hate Bush with a passion and opposed the war
has now done a 180 degree turn and is lying to bolster the war effort. I
guess we should check all their basements for pods.


[ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 9/22/03 ]
INTERNATIONAL ATLANTA
Media's dark cloud a danger
Falsely bleak reports reduce our chances of success in
Iraq
By JIM MARSHALL

On Sept. 14, I flew from Baghdad to Kuwait with Sgt.
Trevor A.
Blumberg from Dearborn, Mich. He was in a body bag. He'd
been
ambushed and killed that afternoon. Sitting in the cargo
bay
of a C 130E, I found myself wondering whether the news
media
were somehow complicit in his death.

News media reports about our progress in Iraq have been
bleak
since shortly after the president's premature declaration
of
victory. These reports contrast sharply with reports of
hope
and progress presented to Congress by Department of
Defense
representatives -- a real disconnect, Vietnam déja vu. So
I
went to Iraq with six other members of Congress to see for
myself.

... In Mosul last Monday, a colonel in
the 101st Airborne put it to me quite simply: "Sir, this
is
worth doing." No one I spoke with said anything different.
And
I spoke with all ranks.

But there will be more Blumbergs killed in action, many
more.
So it is worth doing only if we have a reasonable chance
of
success. And we do, but I'm afraid the news media are
hurting
our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes, the
ambushes, the soldiers killed, the wounded, the Blumbergs.
Fair enough. But it is not balancing this bad news with
"the
rest of the story," the progress made daily, the good
news.

The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve,
discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy.

Zogby International recently released the results of an
August
poll showing hope and progress. My own unscientific
surveys
told me the same thing. With virtually no exceptions,
hundreds
of Iraqis enthusiastically waved back at me as I sat in
the
open door of a helicopter traveling between Babylon and
Baghdad. And I received a similar reception as I worked my
way
alone, shaking hands through a large crowd of refinery
workers
just to see their reaction.

We may need a few credible Baghdad Bobs to undo the harm
done
by our media. I'm afraid it is killing our troops.

-- U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) of Macon, a Vietnam
combat
veteran, is a member of the House Armed Services
Committee.
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
If the media is so pro-Saddam, it's a bit surprising that NBC was just
Post by lazarus
attacked today.
They're glad to kill any Americans. They'd even kill an ally like you.
If they'll gladly kill Americans, what does that say about your
liberation effort? Not very grateful, are they?
Those are your friends - the hardcore Saddam supporters. We have a greater
proportion of the population supporting us in Iraq than the patriots had in
the American Revolution.
My friends? Find one post of mine, ever, in which I said I thought
Saddam was a good person.
Sure sounds like you want the U.S. to fail in Iraq. And the only
beneficiaries of that would be the Saddam supporters (including those in
Germany, France, Russia, etc., who had billion dollar deals with the despot
and will do ANYTHING to make sure they get their money back).
Post by lazarus
And quit making comparisons to the American Revolution. Unless you
can tell me what occupying force appointed the early leaders of
America and kept Americans from voting.
The point is not that this is anything like the American Revolution. But it
is a struggle for radical change to achieve freedom from tyranny (a far
worse tyranny than our forefathers faced). And like then, there is
resistance to change.

"all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while
evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to
which they are accustomed "
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
We need more troops because traitor Clinton - in typical leftist fashion -
dismantled the military. And we need to keep some divisions ready should
they be needed to deal with a nuclear North Korea, the other great foreign
policy "success" of Clinton.
How, then, did the military do such a great job? Are you saying that
the military wasn't up to the mission?
Barely.
Post by lazarus
And wasn't it the Republican Congress that passed the budgets? Y'all
want to take credit for a balanced budget, but blame Clinton for
"dismantling" the military?
To an extent all sides share some blame for the drastically excessive cuts
in military spending. But as always (at least for 40 years) on this issue,
the major fault lies with the Democrats, who have been anti-military for at
least four decades.

From "Rewriting history"
By Peter Huessy
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published September 18, 2003

... The military inherited by the Bush administration was not just the
Clinton administration's legacy. A Republican Congress added some $75
billion in additional resources to the Clinton defense budgets between
1995-2000, funds that prevented the development of serious readiness
problems within the U.S. military, especially given the deployment of U.S.
forces overseas during the 1993-2000 period - a total of 44 times.

In addition, there is a lag time during which the full impact of
Clinton-era defense decisions would actually affect the deployed U.S.
military. At a Center for Strategic and International Studies conference I
spoke at in 2001, the center's president - former Clinton era-defense
official admitted that the procurement portion of the final Clinton
five-year defense plan was under-funded by at least 40 percent, and if
allowed to continue at the proposed funding level, would have resulted in a
military unable to effectively deploy even in those areas where it is now
engaged
...

And indeed, in 1993-9, the Clinton administration cuts hundreds of
billions of dollars from the previous administration's last proposed budget,
including the addition of tens of billions in additional non-defense
expenditures that further reduced funding available for necessary military
projects.
...

the Bush administration proposed an immediate supplemental for fiscal 2001,
the year starting October 1, 2000, at the end of the Clinton administration,
in order to begin the process of providing necessary and additional funds
for the Defense Department.


Peter Huessy is president of GeoStrategic Analysis and senior defense
associate at the National Defense University Foundation.
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
"We sleep soundly in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do
violence on our behalf." - Winston Churchill
"We rest uneasy at night because soft leftist men stand ready to do
appeasement on behalf of our enemies." - Me
You're a loon. Where were your rough men during Viet Nam? Bush was
AWOL. Rush? Lott? DeLay? Where were they? Do you really want to
play war hero with this?
Well, of course you know I was referring to our soldiers. But I will tell
you with certainty where Bush, Rush, Lott and DeLay were NOT. They were NOT
on the side of the NVA or Vietcong. They were not rooting for America to
lose the war, chanting, "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is going to win."
They did NOT help bring about a premature withdrawal that led to the deaths
of well over one million Southeast Asians.
Post by lazarus
I'll put up Kerry and Clark and Kerrey and
Cleland. What do you have besides McCain? Cheney decided he had
"other priorities" during the war. Some "rough man".
How about soft men like Max Cleland, who left three limbs in Viet Nam?
Bob Kerrey, who won a CMH? Yeah, soft men. Kerry won a Bronze Star
and three Purple Hearts, is that soft?
No one can denigrate the service and even heroism of those who have seen
combat. But that says nothing about their judgement in national security
affairs, even if they have risen to the rank of General. And the fact is
the Democrats have had a miserable record in military affairs and national
security since Eisenhower had to bail us out of the mess Truman got us into
in Korea. Since Vietnam they have become the anti-defense and especially
anti-military intelligence party. They can no longer be trusted with our
national security.
Post by lazarus
What about Wolfowitz? Perle? What did they do during the war?
Come on, tell me more about these "rough men". Here's an easy example
for you. Bush got his daddy to pull strings to get him in a Champagne
Unit of the TANG. JFK got his daddy to pull strings to get him into a
combat unit.
This is becoming sickening. Our troops are dying over there to give
you and the rest of your bloodthirsty chickenhawk gang wargasms.
No. They're there to make America safer. A concept the Neville Chamberlain
Democrats no longer understand.
Post by lazarus
If Bush was worried about security, why did he cut funding to the
First Responders who truly are on the front lines, the firemen and
policemen and paramedics?
First RESPONDERS. That's the Democrat way - take a major hit first before
we do anything. I don't want any need for first responders. That means
we've already lost. They only clean up the mess after it's happened. And
God bless them for that and for their own heroic efforts, but they're not
the ones who will keep it from happening again (and, sadly, it will). But
the only thing we can do to reduce the chances is to invest more in
intelligence services - the very services the left has waged a jihad against
for 40 years.
Mike
2003-10-11 04:15:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Founding Father
[ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 9/22/03 ]
INTERNATIONAL ATLANTA
Media's dark cloud a danger
Falsely bleak reports reduce our chances of success in Iraq
By JIM MARSHALL
You seem to quote this reporter a lot.
I suppose that's because of the 1,000s of reporters he's one of the few
that writes stories that support your rather wacky views.
Founding Father
2003-10-11 09:49:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Founding Father
[ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 9/22/03 ]
INTERNATIONAL ATLANTA
Media's dark cloud a danger
Falsely bleak reports reduce our chances of success in Iraq
By JIM MARSHALL
You seem to quote this reporter a lot.
I suppose that's because of the 1,000s of reporters he's one of the few
that writes stories that support your rather wacky views.
"A lot?" Since when is twice "a lot?" And in one of the two articles I
also quoted New York Times foreign correspondent John Burns and former CNN
news head Eason Jordan, both making the same point (in the latter case,
unintentionally).
v***@earthlink.net
2003-10-11 14:13:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Founding Father
[ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 9/22/03 ]
INTERNATIONAL ATLANTA
Media's dark cloud a danger
Falsely bleak reports reduce our chances of success in Iraq
By JIM MARSHALL
You seem to quote this reporter a lot.
I suppose that's because of the 1,000s of reporters he's one of the few
that writes stories that support your rather wacky views.
No, quite the opposite, it's because he as opposed 1000s of paid
propaganda mongers, tells the truth. And the truth is hard to come by
in the left wing democrat fascist media.
Georgiana Gates
2003-10-12 01:16:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@earthlink.net
Post by Mike
Post by Founding Father
[ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 9/22/03 ]
INTERNATIONAL ATLANTA
Media's dark cloud a danger
Falsely bleak reports reduce our chances of success in Iraq
By JIM MARSHALL
You seem to quote this reporter a lot.
I suppose that's because of the 1,000s of reporters he's one of the few
that writes stories that support your rather wacky views.
No, quite the opposite, it's because he as opposed 1000s of paid
propaganda mongers, tells the truth. And the truth is hard to come by
in the left wing democrat fascist media.
If Iraq is going so well, why did we change the leadership around?
Why would Bush break up a winning hand?
v***@earthlink.net
2003-10-12 14:45:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 20:16:52 -0500, Georgiana Gates
Post by Georgiana Gates
If Iraq is going so well, why did we change the leadership around?
Why would Bush break up a winning hand?
You're a babe in arms. Unrest in Europe persisted many years after VE
Day.
Founding Father
2003-10-12 18:58:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Georgiana Gates
Post by v***@earthlink.net
Post by Mike
Post by Founding Father
[ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 9/22/03 ]
INTERNATIONAL ATLANTA
Media's dark cloud a danger
Falsely bleak reports reduce our chances of success in
Iraq
By JIM MARSHALL
You seem to quote this reporter a lot.
I suppose that's because of the 1,000s of reporters he's one of the few
that writes stories that support your rather wacky views.
No, quite the opposite, it's because he as opposed 1000s of paid
propaganda mongers, tells the truth. And the truth is hard to come by
in the left wing democrat fascist media.
If Iraq is going so well, why did we change the leadership around?
Why would Bush break up a winning hand?
Because perception is what matters to most Americans, and they get those
perceptions from an overwhelmingly left wing, anti-Bush media. So they're
trying to make it look better. Personally, I think they fired the wrong
guy. Bremmer is in charge on the ground and he's just another State
Department plant.
Jenn
2003-10-12 19:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Founding Father
Post by Georgiana Gates
Post by v***@earthlink.net
Post by Mike
Post by Founding Father
[ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 9/22/03 ]
INTERNATIONAL ATLANTA
Media's dark cloud a danger
Falsely bleak reports reduce our chances of success
in
Post by Georgiana Gates
Post by v***@earthlink.net
Post by Mike
Post by Founding Father
Iraq
By JIM MARSHALL
You seem to quote this reporter a lot.
I suppose that's because of the 1,000s of reporters he's one of the few
that writes stories that support your rather wacky views.
No, quite the opposite, it's because he as opposed 1000s of paid
propaganda mongers, tells the truth. And the truth is hard to come by
in the left wing democrat fascist media.
If Iraq is going so well, why did we change the leadership around?
Why would Bush break up a winning hand?
Because perception is what matters to most Americans, and they get those
perceptions from an overwhelmingly left wing, anti-Bush media. So they're
trying to make it look better. Personally, I think they fired the wrong
guy. Bremmer is in charge on the ground and he's just another State
Department plant.
LOL the media is almost entirely right wing and Bush has gotten the
longest free ride in history

Imagine how the media would treat the various revelations about the Bush
policy process, greedhead war profiteers etc etc if this were Clinton's
watch

You may recall that Hillary was continuously assaulted for making 100
thou in a commodities deal [under rule which GOPs have consistently
chosen to not change -- since so many of them prosper from preferential
trading themselves] while there is no drum beat about Bush's political
cronies and campaign advisers selling influence for millions

Ice, Interrupted
2003-10-11 16:13:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Founding Father
[ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 9/22/03 ]
INTERNATIONAL ATLANTA
Media's dark cloud a danger
Falsely bleak reports reduce our chances of success in Iraq
By JIM MARSHALL
You seem to quote this reporter a lot.
I suppose that's because of the 1,000s of reporters he's one of the few
that writes stories that support your rather wacky views.
That's because of the 1,000s of reporters the liberal Atlanta
Journal-Constitution has, Jim Marshall is probably the only
reporter/columnist whose views are in sync with the way the rest of Atlanta
thinks and feels. Atlanta, including metro-Atlanta, has a population of 4-5
million. Yet it has only ONE newspaper. Absolutely no major competition.
There are a few county-specific papers, like Gwinnett Daily News and
Marietta Daily Journal, but none have the reach or breadth of the AJC. And
its editor, Cynthia Tucker, is an avowed liberal. Too bad. She's easy on the
eyes.

--

----------------------------------
ICEBREAKER
"Even your infidelity is passive-aggressive!"
Cory
2003-10-11 16:10:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:13:47 -0400, Ice, Interrupted said...
And its editor, Cynthia Tucker, is an avowed liberal.
And the problem with being an avowed liberal would be...???

It's sure a helluva lot better than being a Repugnantcan.

--- Cory
Too bad. She's easy on the eyes.
--
"White House grapples with allegation

If CIA agent?s name was intentionally leaked, laws may have been broken"

http://www.msnbc.com/news/973047.asp?0cv=CA01
Ice, Interrupted
2003-10-11 19:06:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cory
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:13:47 -0400, Ice, Interrupted said...
And its editor, Cynthia Tucker, is an avowed liberal.
And the problem with being an avowed liberal would be...???
It's sure a helluva lot better than being a Repugnantcan.
I don't know about that. I'm not a Republican so I can't answer that charge.
As to your question about what is wrong with being a liberal: oh, nothing
really, I suppose. Liberals just tend to be whiny... idolize poor people
who've wasted away their lives while demonizing successful rich
people.....embrace fascists, socialists and dictators like Saddam Hussein
and Jacque Chirac while trying to deny the same rights to others that they
themselvs enjoy in this country.

And yes, I used to be a liberal. Voted for Jesse Jackson in 1984 and Dukakis
in 1988. Voted for Perot in '92, then didn't vote in 1996, finally voted for
a Republican in 2000 (George Bush). Mercifully I kicked off the shackles of
liberal brainwashing and became an independent, logical thinker rather than
a slave to the group mentality.

----------------------------------
ICEBREAKER
"The nastiness will increase until one party gets smacked hard on the nose
for going nuclear on its opponents. Any guesses which party will suffer the
consequences first? Consider this: The Republicans put up a pro-choice,
pro-gay, pro-public-school, non-native-English-speaking immigrant, and the
opposition calls him a Nazi." -- James Lileks, in a column for The Sun
Herald (Biloxi, Miss)
chicagofan
2003-10-11 20:50:30 UTC
Permalink
<> Liberals just tend to be whiny... idolize poor people
who've wasted away their lives while demonizing successful rich
people.....embrace fascists, socialists and dictators like Saddam Hussein
and Jacque Chirac while trying to deny the same rights to others that they
themselvs enjoy in this country.
Do you have any idea how silly it is, for you to write this garbarge, much
less... claim to believe it?
And yes, I used to be a liberal. <> Mercifully I kicked off the shackles of
liberal brainwashing and became an independent, logical thinker rather than
a slave to the group mentality.
That's hilarious! Your "independent, logical" thinking... inspires you to
repeat that *by the numbers* claptrap ABOVE... which dittoheads and the
freepers spout universally? I think not... you obviously brainwash easily,
and have just fallen into a *different* cesspool. Good luck in shaking
their brainwashing!
bj
BudGan
2003-10-11 21:31:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ice, Interrupted
Post by Cory
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:13:47 -0400, Ice, Interrupted said...
And its editor, Cynthia Tucker, is an avowed liberal.
And the problem with being an avowed liberal would be...???
It's sure a helluva lot better than being a Repugnantcan.
I don't know about that. I'm not a Republican so I can't answer that charge.
As to your question about what is wrong with being a liberal: oh, nothing
really, I suppose. Liberals just tend to be whiny... idolize poor people
who've wasted away their lives while demonizing successful rich
people.....embrace fascists, socialists and dictators like Saddam Hussein
and Jacque Chirac while trying to deny the same rights to others that they
themselvs enjoy in this country.
And yes, I used to be a liberal. Voted for Jesse Jackson in 1984 and Dukakis
in 1988. Voted for Perot in '92, then didn't vote in 1996, finally voted for
a Republican in 2000 (George Bush). Mercifully I kicked off the shackles of
liberal brainwashing and became an independent, logical thinker rather than
a slave to the group mentality.
Ditto and Amen.
Cory
2003-10-11 21:39:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:31:29 -0500, BudGan said...
Post by BudGan
Mercifully I kicked off the shackles of liberal
brainwashing and became an independent, logical
thinker rather than a slave to the group mentality.
Ditto and Amen.
And defending an idiotic baboon like Dumbya, or even that psychobitch
from Hell, Ann Coulter, just because they are Repugnantcans, is a sign
of "independent and logical" thinking... HOW???

--- Cory
--
"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that
John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people
like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making
them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out
to be outright traitors."

--- Ann PsychoBitch Coulter

My e-mail address shouldn't have my first name in it.
v***@earthlink.net
2003-10-11 23:41:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:39:57 -0500, Cory ranted
.
Typical democrat fascist party hate propaganda.
Cory
2003-10-11 23:56:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 23:41:54 GMT, said...
Post by v***@earthlink.net
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:39:57 -0500, Cory ranted
Typical democrat fascist party hate propaganda.
Huh??? I think you have it backwards, Sparky. The Repugnantcan party is
the one with the fascist hate mongerers.

--- Cory
--
Hell hath frozen over...

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/toons/heller/heller1.asp

My e-mail address does not have my first name in it.
v***@earthlink.net
2003-10-12 14:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cory
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 23:41:54 GMT, said...
Post by v***@earthlink.net
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:39:57 -0500, Cory ranted
Typical democrat fascist party hate propaganda.
Huh??? I think you have it backwards, Sparky. The Repugnantcan party is
the one with the fascist hate mongerers.
--- Cory
Typical fascist lie to hide your real motives - desire for power.
BudGan
2003-10-12 00:08:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@earthlink.net
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:39:57 -0500, Cory ranted
.
Typical democrat fascist party hate propaganda.
Be careful. Any minute now you're going to be treated to the
I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I defense. There are only three people in
my killfile and Cory is one of them.
Cory
2003-10-12 00:14:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:08:18 -0500, BudGan said...
Post by BudGan
Post by v***@earthlink.net
Typical democrat fascist party hate propaganda.
Be careful. Any minute now you're going to be treated to the
I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I defense. There are only three people in
my killfile and Cory is one of them.
Ooh... I feel so special.

--- Cory
--
"The Bush administration launched an offensive this week to justify the
war in Iraq and curb criticism of it. Vice President Dick Cheney said
terrorists are working to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans 'in a
single day of horror.' Secretary of State Colin Powell conveyed the
president's message that 'there are no second thoughts on our part.'". --
- CNN.com

No matter how much BS Dumbya's administration feeds news organizations,
and no matter how they regurgitate it, some of us are going to see right
through Dumbya's lies and BS, and call it what it is... CRAP.

My e-mail address should not have my first name in it.
v***@earthlink.net
2003-10-12 14:43:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cory
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:08:18 -0500, BudGan said...
Post by BudGan
Post by v***@earthlink.net
Typical democrat fascist party hate propaganda.
Be careful. Any minute now you're going to be treated to the
I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I defense. There are only three people in
my killfile and Cory is one of them.
Ooh... I feel so special.
--- Cory
You shouldn't. There is nothing to suggest you are special
Mike
2003-10-11 04:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
My friends? Find one post of mine, ever, in which I said I thought
Saddam was a good person.
Sure sounds like you want the U.S. to fail in Iraq. And the only
beneficiaries of that would be the Saddam supporters (including those
in Germany, France, Russia, etc., who had billion dollar deals with
the despot and will do ANYTHING to make sure they get their money
back).
Didn't answer the question.
Founding Father
2003-10-11 09:44:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
My friends? Find one post of mine, ever, in which I said I thought
Saddam was a good person.
Sure sounds like you want the U.S. to fail in Iraq. And the only
beneficiaries of that would be the Saddam supporters (including those
in Germany, France, Russia, etc., who had billion dollar deals with
the despot and will do ANYTHING to make sure they get their money
back).
Didn't answer the question.
OK. How's this. Bill Clinton had lots of friends. No one ever said he was
a "good person" (no one not devoid of morals, anyway).

You don't have to think one to be a good person in order to be a friend, as
in the sense of ally ("The enemy of my enemy is my friend" - a commonly used
but very bad saying).
v***@earthlink.net
2003-10-11 14:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Founding Father
OK. How's this. Bill Clinton had lots of friends. No one ever said he was
a "good person" (no one not devoid of morals, anyway).
You don't have to think one to be a good person in order to be a friend, as
in the sense of ally ("The enemy of my enemy is my friend" - a commonly used
but very bad saying).
Then I suggest you are very sloppy in your choice of friends and
enemies.
chicagofan
2003-10-11 14:56:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@earthlink.net
Post by Founding Father
OK. How's this. Bill Clinton had lots of friends. No one ever said he was
a "good person" (no one not devoid of morals, anyway).
You don't have to think one to be a good person in order to be a friend, as
in the sense of ally ("The enemy of my enemy is my friend" - a commonly used
but very bad saying).
Then I suggest you are very sloppy in your choice of friends and
enemies.
Careful now, you need to slow down while slinging this crap of yours...
you're insulting one of your cult members.
bj
v***@earthlink.net
2003-10-11 23:36:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by chicagofan
Careful now, you need to slow down while slinging this crap of yours...
you're insulting one of your cult members.
bj
Did someone rattle your chain, kid ?
v***@earthlink.net
2003-10-11 14:14:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Didn't answer the question.
Another goofy incredible opinion of yours.
Mike
2003-10-11 04:19:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
You're a loon. Where were your rough men during Viet Nam? Bush was
AWOL. Rush? Lott? DeLay? Where were they? Do you really want to
play war hero with this?
Well, of course you know I was referring to our soldiers. But I will
tell you with certainty where Bush, Rush, Lott and DeLay were NOT.
They were NOT on the side of the NVA or Vietcong. They were not
rooting for America to lose the war, chanting, "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh,
the NLF is going to win." They did NOT help bring about a premature
withdrawal that led to the deaths of well over one million Southeast
Asians.
You call this a response to his question?
You answer direct questions just like politicians, all bluster and
misdirection.

This is the last one. I give up. You're too much of a loon to put any
effort into refuting.
Founding Father
2003-10-11 09:51:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
You're a loon. Where were your rough men during Viet Nam? Bush was
AWOL. Rush? Lott? DeLay? Where were they? Do you really want to
play war hero with this?
Well, of course you know I was referring to our soldiers. But I will
tell you with certainty where Bush, Rush, Lott and DeLay were NOT.
They were NOT on the side of the NVA or Vietcong. They were not
rooting for America to lose the war, chanting, "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh,
the NLF is going to win." They did NOT help bring about a premature
withdrawal that led to the deaths of well over one million Southeast
Asians.
You call this a response to his question?
You answer direct questions just like politicians, all bluster and
misdirection.
This is the last one. I give up. You're too much of a loon to put any
effort into refuting.
If you think your lame efforts amount to "refuting," you should give up.
v***@earthlink.net
2003-10-11 14:24:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Founding Father
If you think your lame efforts amount to "refuting," you should give up.
He lacks much talent in babble, which is a necessity with his
off-the-wall left wing extremism.
v***@earthlink.net
2003-10-11 14:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
You call this a response to his question?
You answer direct questions just like politicians, all bluster and
misdirection.
This is the last one. I give up. You're too much of a loon to put any
effort into refuting.
Come, come Billyboy just more blatherrskite and gibberish to cover
your lack of a responce.
Mike
2003-10-11 04:24:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
If Bush was worried about security, why did he cut funding to the
First Responders who truly are on the front lines, the firemen and
policemen and paramedics?
First RESPONDERS. That's the Democrat way - take a major hit first
before we do anything. I don't want any need for first responders.
That means we've already lost. They only clean up the mess after it's
happened.
An absolute newsloon.
Can't answer a straight-forward question, just carry on with your personal
rant.

Oops - I wasn't going to bother with you any more.
v***@earthlink.net
2003-10-11 14:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
An absolute newsloon.
Can't answer a straight-forward question, just carry on with your personal
rant.
Oops - I wasn't going to bother with you any more.
Just more moron babble.
z
2003-09-24 15:30:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linda Harms
Post by Cory
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:02:11 -0400, Linda Harms said...
Post by Linda Harms
The invasion of Iraq is not supported because it was not justified. It
was engineered to deflect the US public's attention from the failure to
find/kill Bin Laden, and to fill the bank accounts of Cheney and his
cronies at Halliburton.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25571-2003Sep17.html
--- Cory
I think that's called "back pedaling."
Soon to come:
The rightwingers accuse the liberals of convincing the US that Saddam
was behind 9/11 and about to attack the US with bionucleochemical
killer bombs.
Mike
2003-10-11 04:26:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by z
The rightwingers accuse the liberals of convincing the US that Saddam
was behind 9/11 and about to attack the US with bionucleochemical
killer bombs.
and maybe dna-enhanced smart fleas.
The little buggers get everywhere, multiply incredibly fast, and can
determine a person's religion (or lack thereof) so they only attack non-
muslims.
v***@earthlink.net
2003-10-11 14:27:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
and maybe dna-enhanced smart fleas.
The little buggers get everywhere, multiply incredibly fast, and can
determine a person's religion (or lack thereof) so they only attack non-
muslims.
Another dose of adolescent meaningless jabber chatter.
z
2003-10-11 15:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by z
The rightwingers accuse the liberals of convincing the US that Saddam
was behind 9/11 and about to attack the US with bionucleochemical
killer bombs.
and maybe dna-enhanced smart fleas.
The little buggers get everywhere, multiply incredibly fast, and can
determine a person's religion (or lack thereof) so they only attack non-
muslims.
Sounds like Foundling Farter.
Founding Father
2003-10-12 19:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by z
Post by Mike
Post by z
The rightwingers accuse the liberals of convincing the US that Saddam
was behind 9/11 and about to attack the US with bionucleochemical
killer bombs.
and maybe dna-enhanced smart fleas.
The little buggers get everywhere, multiply incredibly fast, and can
determine a person's religion (or lack thereof) so they only attack non-
muslims.
Sounds like Foundling Farter.
Only to a pea-brain.
CosmicDawg
2003-09-23 04:59:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@rrogers.com
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Post by Founding Father
Post by Joe Cox
It's to bad the son lacks the wisdom of his father.
Exactly the opposite. If Bush, Sr., had not been such a liberal,
internationalist, Republican he would have taken Saddam out 12 years ago,
saving us all that trouble and perhaps as much as half a million Iraqi
lives.
Reagan was too liberal, too, wasn't he?
On some issues (where he screwed up) - absolutely.
Such as his vicious response to the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut,
where he immediately pulled out and invaded Grenada? Wag the dog....
Lets see; Bush attacks and invades Afghanistan over 9/11 and the left
bitches. Reagan does very little after the barracks bombing, and the
left bitches about it. Pschizo, anyone?
-Rich
Let's see, Clinton sends some missiles into Iraq and the right
bitches. Clinton doesn't send more missiles and the right bitches.
--
Arrest rate for Washington DC police officers: 19 per 1000
Arrest rate for New York City police officers: 3 per 1000
Arrest rate for Florida concealed handgun permit holders: 0.9 per 1000

Which one should we disarm?
David Johnston
2003-09-11 20:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Imagine Bush, idiot Texan, trying to understand Middle East tensions!
What a joke he is.
Bush understands the Middle East a hell of a lot better than Jimmy Carter
who paved the way for militant Islamists in Iran or Bill Clinton who let bin
Laden go numerous times.
I suppose "one" is a number. Fact is, Clinton tried to kill bin Laden
several times.
ruud
2003-09-26 20:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Imagine Bush, idiot Texan, trying to understand Middle East tensions!
What a joke he is.
Bush understands the Middle East a hell of a lot better than Jimmy Carter
who paved the way for militant Islamists in Iran or Bill Clinton who let bin
Laden go numerous times. That relentless show of WEAKNESS (along with the
dismantling of our intelligence capabilities) led to 9/11.
Bush understands the only thing these terrorists understand is force.
Democrats believe only in appeasement, which has failed every time it's been
tried (not to mention N. Korea, which isn't in the Middle East).
Someone's been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh- the king of
dis-infornation (ie: Republican-funded propaganda).

It was the Bush "election" in Nov., 2000 that set the wheels in motion
for Al Qaeda.

Nothing was being "dismantled". In fact, Clinton bombed several areas-
not devoted to oil production- while Bush's people (yes, "Bush's
people"- he has little grasp of what's going on- a puppet of the
ruling class) concentrate on controlling just oil interests in the
name of the Bush's family friends: The Saudis.
z
2003-09-30 13:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Founding Father
Post by lazarus
Imagine Bush, idiot Texan, trying to understand Middle East tensions!
What a joke he is.
Bush understands the Middle East a hell of a lot better than Jimmy Carter
who paved the way for militant Islamists in Iran or Bill Clinton who let bin
Laden go numerous times. That relentless show of WEAKNESS (along with the
dismantling of our intelligence capabilities) led to 9/11.
Bush understands the only thing these terrorists understand is force.
Yup, nothing discourages somebody who wants to martyr themselves more
than the threat of death from an enemy.
Post by Founding Father
Democrats believe only in appeasement, which has failed every time it's been
tried (not to mention N. Korea, which isn't in the Middle East).
Linda Harms
2003-09-11 15:17:55 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, rander3127
@rrogers.com says...
Post by r***@rrogers.com
Imagine Dean, lilly white Vermontian trying to understand
Middle East tensions! What a joke he is.
-Rich
What a racist statement that is.

************************************
Linda Harms
New York, NY

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5
Relish
2003-09-11 18:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linda Harms
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5
How incredibly negative and depressing. No wonder you're a Liberal.
Linda Harms
2003-09-11 20:49:33 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@hotmail.com>, ***@hotmail.com
says...
Post by Relish
Post by Linda Harms
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5
How incredibly negative and depressing. No wonder you're a Liberal.
What makes you think I'm a Liberal? Because I disagree with you?

That only makes me an intelligent, thinking human being.

************************************
Linda Harms
New York, NY

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5
Relish
2003-09-11 21:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linda Harms
says...
Post by Relish
Post by Linda Harms
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5
How incredibly negative and depressing. No wonder you're a Liberal.
What makes you think I'm a Liberal? Because I disagree with you?
That only makes me an intelligent, thinking human being.
************************************
Linda Harms
New York, NY
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5
Kiss my ass. I'm outta here.
Linda Harms
2003-09-12 13:42:36 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@hotmail.com>, ***@hotmail.com
says...
Post by Relish
Post by Linda Harms
says...
Post by Relish
Post by Linda Harms
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5
How incredibly negative and depressing. No wonder you're a Liberal.
What makes you think I'm a Liberal? Because I disagree with you?
That only makes me an intelligent, thinking human being.
************************************
Linda Harms
New York, NY
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5
Kiss my ass.
There you go again -- another finely honed argument. BTW, kudos for
your judicial deletion of the salient points of my post.
Post by Relish
I'm outta here.
If only that were true.

************************************
Linda Harms
New York, NY

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5
z
2003-09-12 20:10:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Relish
Kiss my ass. I'm outta here.
Relish is but a walking shadow, a poor poster
That struts and frets his 30 seconds on Usenet
And then is heard no more. His post is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of rightwing fury,
Signifying nothing.

Big Mac, with Cheese
Linda Harms
2003-09-15 15:16:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by z
Post by Relish
Kiss my ass. I'm outta here.
Relish is but a walking shadow, a poor poster
That struts and frets his 30 seconds on Usenet
And then is heard no more. His post is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of rightwing fury,
Signifying nothing.
That's what I was going to say!

;-)

************************************
Linda Harms
New York, NY

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5
Linda Harms
2003-09-11 20:54:24 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@hotmail.com>, ***@hotmail.com
says...
Post by Relish
Post by Linda Harms
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5
How incredibly negative and depressing. No wonder you're a Liberal.
What makes you think I'm a Liberal? Because I disagree with =you=?

That only makes me an intelligent, thinking human being.

You, on the other hand, have lowered the level of your commentary to new
depths, so that now you are making childish, knee-jerk comments about
my signature.

Surely even you could find better things to do with your time.

************************************
Linda Harms
New York, NY

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5
z
2003-09-11 20:59:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Relish
Post by Linda Harms
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5
How incredibly negative and depressing. No wonder you're a Liberal.
Did I miss a memo? Is Shakespeare now Conservatively Incorrect? Stick
with Schwarzeneggger and John Wayne?
Andy Jakcsy
2003-09-11 01:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Ubiquitous sez:

<<
Post by Ubiquitous
The Jerusulem Post
...aaaaaaaand we can discount today's "What Liberal Media?" Why, you ask?
It's like using CBN to prove a conservative media...

But let's see what we have to say:

<<
Post by Ubiquitous
Howard Dean uttering something that the
media would trumpet as proff of his stupidity if said by a Republican. Asked
"The two-state solution is a solution that I support and I believe is the
ultimate way to peace in the Middle East. And we're going to have to be
the honest broker. The Americans are the only people who can broker that,
and I wish the president had spent more time on the Middle East and less
time on Iraq."
Well, it IS a stupid thing to say, but not in the way I think you meant. I
think that the US should have a totally hands-off outlook on Israel. But
that's just me...

Oh by the way, Peter Jennings' ABC News is currently carrying a story about
Democrats denouncing Dean on those Israel comments. Of course, they don't say
what's ABOVE, but they do make mention...

And before you say "but they're not RIDICULING him," remember that the REPORTS
don't ridicule, the ANALYSTS do...and I'm sure tomorrow Rush Limbaugh will be
going over that line and laughing...y'know, Rush Limbaugh, a Republican on
Liberal-dominated media services?


----
"They certainly are."
--Flavor text for Magic: The Gathering card "Goblin Offensive"
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...