« Everybody loves a good carnival | Main | Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners »

The Left is Rooting for America's Defeat in Iraq

Updated

I know, that's not anything new; anti-war leftists have been undermining this country's military for a long time now. Today, however, the great Mark Steyn has piece in today's Chicago Tribune that illustrates this point very well:

Meanwhile, the punk cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has decided that discretion is the better part of mullahs and has temporarily relocated to Iran. That's right: The biggest troublemaker in Iraq is no longer in Iraq. It may be that his Persian vacation is only to marry a cousin or two and consult with the A-list ayatollahs, but the Mookster has always had highly sensitive antennae when it comes to his own physical security -- he likes being the guy who urges martyrdom on others rather than being just another schmuck who takes one for the team. So the fact that urgent business requires him to be out of town for the Big Surge is revealing at the very least of how American objectives in Iraq are not at the mercy of forces beyond their control; U.S. military and political muscle can shape conditions on the ground -- if they can demonstrate they're serious about doing so.


Which these days is a pretty big "if." Reporting the sudden relocation, the New York Times decided -- in nothing flat -- that it was yet another disastrous setback. In Iraq, no news is good news, and Sadr news is badder news:

''With the new American offensive in Baghdad still in its early days, American commanders have focused operations in the eastern part of the city, a predominantly Shiite area that has long been the Mahdi Army's power base.

''If Mr. Sadr had indeed fled, his absence would create a vacuum that could allow even more radical elements of the Shiite group to take power.''

As my National Review colleague Rich Lowry marveled: ''So now we need to keep Sadr in Iraq because he's such a stabilizing influence!'' Of course! As Hillaire Belloc wrote, ''Always keep a hold of Nurse/For fear of finding something worse'' -- and, even when Nurse Sadr is blowing up the kids in the nursery every day, it's best to cling to her blood-drenched apron strings because the next nurse will be an even bigger psycho. America is a big helpless baby who's blundered into a war zone he can never hope to understand.

And on top of the Times' constant negativity, Mark also comments on Democrat Jack Murtha's new plan to undermine the war:

Nevertheless, in the capital city of the most powerful nation on the planet, the political class spent last week trying to craft a bipartisan defeat strategy, and they might yet pull it off. Consider this extraordinary report from the Washington Post:


"Democratic leaders have rallied around a strategy that would fully fund the president's $100 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but would limit his ability to use the money. . . . The plan is aimed at tamping down calls from the Democrats' liberal wing for Congress to simply end funding for the war.

"The Murtha plan, based on existing military guidelines, includes a stipulation that Army troops who have already served in Iraq must be granted two years at home before an additional deployment. . . . The idea is to slowly choke off the war by stopping the deployment of troops from units that have been badly degraded by four years of combat."


So "the Murtha plan" is to deny the president the possibility of victory while making sure Democrats don't have to share the blame for the defeat. But of course he's a great American! He's a patriot! He supports the troops! He doesn't support them in the mission, but he'd like them to continue failing at it for a couple more years.

The Democrats are engaged in a war of their own against the Republicans, President Bush, and the military. As Mark notes, they are trying to create the situation in which America fails in Iraq but in such a way that they not only avoid becoming collateral damage but also benefit from it politically in 2008. For Murtha and his ilk, it's party over country.

Update: Ian at Hot Air has the video of Brit Hume telling the cold, hard truth about Murtha. Here's the transcript:

HUME: That sound bite from John Murtha suggests that it's time a few things be said about him. Even the "Washington Post" noted he didn't seem particularly well informed about what's going on over there, to say the least. Look, this man has tremendous cachet among House Democrats, but he is not -- this guy is long past the day when he had anything but the foggiest awareness of what the heck is going on in the world.


And that sound bite is naivete at large, and the man is an absolute fountain of such talk, and the fact that he has ascended to the position he has in the eyes of the Democrats in the House and perhaps Democrats around the country tells you a lot about how much they know or care about what's really going on over there.

WILLIAMS: He's chairman of the subcommittee, House Appropriations. He'll have a lot to say about what Mara was just discussing

HUME: A lot of it will be ...

Update II: And Brit is not the only one who is finally speaking the truth about Jack Murtha. The Washington Post also criticized Murtha for his plan:

REP. JOHN MURTHA (D-Pa.) has a message for anyone who spent the week following the House of Representatives' marathon debate on Iraq: You've been distracted by a sideshow. "We have to be careful that people don't think this is the vote," the 74-year-old congressman said of the House's 246-182 decision in favor of a resolution disapproving of President Bush's troop surge. "The real vote will come on the legislation we're putting together." That would be Mr. Murtha's plan to "stop the surge" and "force a redeployment" of U.S. forces from Iraq while ducking the responsibility that should come with such a radical step.


Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to "stop the surge." So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill -- an action Congress is clearly empowered to take -- rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. "What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.

So Murtha admits that his plan is all about politics. He doesn't give a damn about our troops, our military, or our country. And the WaPo also hits Murtha for his ignorance about what's really going on in Iraq.

Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties." He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?

This man has no business even being in Congress let alone the chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee.

Update III: I highly recommend reading Investor's Business Daily's editorial about Murtha. Here are the last few paragraphs that get straight to the point:

We'd have to go back to Benedict Arnold to find Americans as eager as Murtha & Co. to see an American defeat on the battlefield.


They are working on the game plan of al-Qaida's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri. In October 2005, Zawahiri outlined al-Qaida's plan in a letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, late head of al-Qaida in Iraq:

"The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority . . . over as much territory as you can spread its power in Iraq . . . in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans."

John Murtha and his perfidious friends are working on creating that void and completing Zawahiri's first stage. They are the appeasers Churchill warned about who hope that by feeding the Islamofascist tiger, it will eat us last.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Left is Rooting for America's Defeat in Iraq:

» A Blog For All linked with On Nonbinding Votes

» Maggie's Farm linked with President Coolidge Day Links

Comments (213)

I keep hearing liberals pro... (Below threshold)
Carl:

I keep hearing liberals proclaming that the military cannot win it all by itself in Iraq and that diplomacy must be used. I find that even conservatives tend to agree with a major caveat: the military might must be present to give the diplomacy the muscle it needs to be persuasive. Unfortunately, this is a caveat the liberals have been rejecting hence the "cut and run" mentality of the Murthas, Reids, Pelosis, etc. Congressional liberals have now painted themselves into a political corner where victory in Iraq is not only undesirable, but failure is necessary if they feel they have any chance in 2008. In their petty politics, victory in Iraq is unnacceptable and they will do almost whatever they can to cause failure. I say "almost" because the non-binding House legislation against the surge shows they are unwilling to take any solid action for which they would have to answer. For example, Congress has the power to cut off all funding of the war in Iraq but even though the "cut and run" liberals keep talking tough, they have thus far refused to even consider actually following through on cutting off funding. If they truly had the intestinal fortitude to take action on their supposed convictions, then they should put bills on the House and Senate floors with on-the-record voting to cut funding. But they know if they did that, whomever voted to cut the funds would be effectively be committing political suicide.

Murtha's plan will ensure t... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Murtha's plan will ensure that new troops are properly trained and equipped and current troops are rested before deployment. All according to current army regulations.

The republicans want to send unequipped and tired troops into combat where they will be killed at a higher rate than those that are properly trained and equipped.

Way to support the troops republicans!

Kim: Great post. Your headl... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

Kim: Great post. Your headline tells it like it is; speaking truth to the soon-to-arrive troll-storm.

Murtha's plan will ensur... (Below threshold)
Mark:

Murtha's plan will ensure that new troops are properly trained and equipped and current troops are rested before deployment. All according to current army regulations.

Just curious - if Murtha (and the Democrats) cared so much for the troops safety, then why don't they support this plan for all conflicts? Why just focus on troops going to Iraq?

The Left is Rootin... (Below threshold)
Publicus:
The Left is Rooting for America's Defeat in Iraq

LOL! Good one!

I wonder when Barney will m... (Below threshold)
epqdor:

I wonder when Barney will mount Spark Plug and ride off into the hills to meet with Snuffy?

Barneygoogle--can't you com... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Barneygoogle--can't you come up with anything better then that? That senile old bastard should be hung as a traitor for aiding the enemy.
pubichair-tongue tied? No answer? Can't answer when the truth hits you between the eyes? What else do you call it? If the whole country had got behind this from the start,it would have been over long ago. The left has been doing everything it can to hamper Bush's effort to win this thing and to say otherwise is lie.

Kim,Keep in mind tha... (Below threshold)

Kim,
Keep in mind that Rep. Murtha never proposes anything regarding the military unless he gets prior approval (often a wink and a nod) from the Military Brass. He is their mouthpiece in congress when the Executive Branch won't listen to their concerns.

Ok righties, let the flaming begin.

I know it is difficult for ... (Below threshold)
Jeff Irvin:

I know it is difficult for the idolatrous George W. Bush worshippers in the Republican Party to acknowledge this but the United States has achieved both of the objectives it set out to accomplish.

One, we used the United States military to achieve the objective of discovering whether Saddam Hussein had WMDs. He did not. Of course, there were those of us who suspected this all along. The evidence was tenuous at best; and, if this madman had had them surely he would have used them as the US army made its way to Baghdad. After all, what did he have to lose, the support of France, Russia and China? I think we can all agree that we are glad he did not have these things--although I am sure we disagree as to whether this was money and lives well spent.

The second thing we wanted to achieve was the removal of Saddam Hussein. It took us weeks to topple his regime and a year to find him. It was at this point, when he was in US custody, that we missed the opportunity to exit gracefully.

Our military exists to kill people and destroy things. It is meant to make people fear the United States should they act against our national security interests. It is not the Red Cross or the United Nations. It is to these organizations that we should leave the humanitarian aid and nation building--even if they are not always effective.

Once we had achieved our initial objectives we should have told the Iraqi people that they were on their own, but that if we had to come back there for any reason that we would not leave one brick on another, nor would we leave one oil pipeline operational.

What good would a desert without oil or infrastructure do any would-be terrorist organization?

Unfortunately, I do not think any one in the Western world has the stomach for this type of amoral foreign policy. We have convinced ourselves that it is possible to conduct a war within the constraints imposed by a liberal society. If this were possible, why would we even need war?

I see that none of you answ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I see that none of you answered my question.

As Rummy said:
You don't go to war with the army you want, you go to war with the army you:
-Under Funded
-Under Equipped
-Under Trained
and
-Burnt-out

Barney, that's the first ti... (Below threshold)
Henny Penny:

Barney, that's the first time I've seen you blame Congress for anything.

Are you coming around?

"So the fact that urgent... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"So the fact that urgent business requires him to be out of town for the Big Surge is revealing at the very least of how American objectives in Iraq are not at the mercy of forces beyond their control; U.S. military and political muscle can shape conditions on the ground -- if they can demonstrate they're serious about doing so."

We're going on five years now, and eve now the administration is still not "serious" -- and are only now getting to the point where they may be able to "...demonstrate they're serious about doing so"?

The only reason George is halfway serious now is that he's trying to pull the Republican party out of the trash can before the 2008 elections.

What a sad waste of lives, money, and international goodwill -- all sacrificed so that the GOP and their big-money lobbyists and backers can milk the GWOT for political power and billions in contracts a while longer.

It took the Democrats gaining power in Congress to push the administration into getting serious about securing Iraq, and we are only now getting to the point where they may be able to "...demonstrate they're serious about doing so".

We've got to get these people out of Washington.

Yeah, but let's not forget ... (Below threshold)

Yeah, but let's not forget about Big Oil...

"The Left is Rooting for Am... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"The Left is Rooting for America's Defeat in Iraq"

Hopefully Kim has set this up as a macro. Shift+F13 maybe.

The Tinkerbell plan:<... (Below threshold)
robert the original:

The Tinkerbell plan:

So, on Fox, several commenters on the panel talked about the very bad things that would happen if we left Iraq quickly.

Juan, big lib from NPR, said that bad things would not happen because it is the US presence that is causing all the trouble anyway. The Iraqis would step up then, Juan said, and settle everything. (Presumably, he thinks Iran would step back, Al Qaeda would go away, and everyone would live happily ever after).

The is the Tinkerbell plan: pull the troops back to Okinawa and then close your eyes and believe...

Peter Pan: "What's the matter with you? It was poison, wasn't it? Tink? Your voice is so low now I can hardly hear you. What's that? You believe that you could get well again... if children only believed in fairies".

Just curious - if Murth... (Below threshold)
marc:

Just curious - if Murtha (and the Democrats) cared so much for the troops safety, then why don't they support this plan for all conflicts? Why just focus on troops going to Iraq?
Posted by: Mark at February 18, 2007 02:16 PM

I agree Mark - Just where is Rep[rehensible] Murtha's plan to limit Naval deployments? For most of my 20 years there was an 18 month turn around policy, for the last few years that has gone down to one year. (U.S.S. Lincoln just left San Dog after LESS than a year at home)

So where is his concern about sending U.S. sailors on deployment without sufficient time for training and maintenance on vital equip?

Can anyone supporting Murtha give an (coherent) answer for him?

"Kim,Keep in mind th... (Below threshold)
Ran:

"Kim,
Keep in mind that Rep. Murtha never proposes anything regarding the military unless he gets prior approval (often a wink and a nod) from the Military Brass. He is their mouthpiece in congress when the Executive Branch won't listen to their concerns."

They suggested Okinawa ????? Get the name of that "Rent A Brass!"..We want him in Iran's Army!

Marc and Mark, if you two a... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Marc and Mark, if you two are so concern with how US forces are deployed in violation of army Regs., why haven't you spoken up before?

Why is Murtha (a Democrat) the only person that is concerned with sending US forces in harms way without proper training and equipment? I thought the Pubs were the best friend of the services?

On FNS, Chris W. provided p... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

On FNS, Chris W. provided proof that the D. Feith fibbed on his show last week.

Feith BS'd about presenting non collaborated intelligence that Iraq was involved with al Qaida.

If Feith would lie so brazenly on national TV, you have to wonder how much the administration lied while providing off the record WND leaked intelligence to the American people?

Were is the outrage from the right?

KimAs is <a href="... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Kim

As is General Odom, monster of the left, one of Ronnie Reagan's good ole boys. Get off your "Drunk with Hatred" over the '06 election loss syndrom.

Marc and Mark, if you t... (Below threshold)
marc:

Marc and Mark, if you two are so concern with how US forces are deployed in violation of army Regs., why haven't you spoken up before?Posted by: BarneyG2000 at February 18, 2007 05:12 PM

Why make the assumption I haven't spoken about it. Oh wait, I know, you've read EVERYTHING I've written on the matter and also have the abilities of the Amazing Kreskin.

And on top of the lunacy you imply "army regs" is what controls the U.S. Navy (year right!) and the U.S. armys deployment schedule.

The end result of you idiotic response is a fine display of ignorance not to mention what a tool you are.

Why is Murtha (a D... (Below threshold)
Why is Murtha (a Democrat) the only person that is concerned with sending US forces in harms way without proper training and equipment? I thought the Pubs were the best friend of the services? Posted by: BarneyG2000 at February 18, 2007 05:12 PM

Well if Murtha and his fellow democrats had their way, US forces would never be used again. Gosh, soldiers may die when they go to war, one would think you would realize that by now, since only the left *cares* about the soldiers.

Murtha is betraying all those he served with and those currently serving by turning their volunteer service to defend this country into some whiny, anti-Bush bitch-fest for the left.

Would've hated to see you blathering left-tards around 1944.

Get off your "Drun... (Below threshold)
Get off your "Drunk with Hatred" over the '06 election loss syndrom. Posted by: aRepukelican at February 18, 2007 05:42 PM

Puke boy, what world do you live where this fantasy land BS keeps coming up? If it weren't sad, it would be real funny with all these contrived thoughts you keep ascribing to those on the right. Keep em' coming Sally.

OK marc, please take this o... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

OK marc, please take this opportunity to bash the Bush administration for sending soldiers to die without proper training, equipment or rest?

You implied that you have in the past, so please set me straight.

You implied that you ha... (Below threshold)
marc:

You implied that you have in the past, so please set me straight. Posted by: BarneyG2000 at February 18, 2007 06:05 PM

You ask for the impossible.

Why make the assumption I h... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Why make the assumption I haven't spoken about it. by marc

You implied that you have in the past, so please set me straight. by barney

You ask for the impossible. by Marc

I guess you are just a poser!

Barney has been willing to ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Barney has been willing to promote and defend known liars like Wilson and Brock. So it is not a surprised that he will defend the liberal sewage here. (BTW, the liberals are saying that Bush should have treated the Dems like Clinton and Daschle etc... as liars as they signed the Iraq Liberation Act even before 9/11). Barney is projecting the habit of lying onto Bush. These people can talk about lying with a straight face. Just amazing what the liberal sewage can do to you.


PELOSI: I pray that it does. But the fact is we know that it would increase the odds of it working if there were some sincere efforts to engage the other countries in the region in the diplomatic solutions that are necessary to stabilize the region, and do the political work, do the political work -- that is to say, amend the constitution, include the Sunnis and others into the civic life of Iraq. That's where you go. You don't go into ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods and say, "Now we're going to referee."

Barney..So let me get this ... (Below threshold)
Ran:

Barney..So let me get this straight..Murtha is concerned about the troops?.. or is live @9 right, and Murtha is only mouthing what some secret Brass tells him?.. like going to Okinawa

Who is it that made the ass... (Below threshold)
marc:

Who is it that made the assertion first? Who was it that made an idiotic statement with nothing but air between the ears, and I'm the one that has to prove you incorrect!

Just because you can't find the answer at your favorite site, loose change, doesn't mean I have to play your game.

Ran, The dems are c... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Ran,
The dems are concerned about the troops acting like Nazi or involving in ethnic cleansing in Iraq. That 's what they think about the US military.
This dem party is so despicable.

I am amazed that the libera... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I am amazed that the liberals/dems can say with a straight face that they care about the troops.

They hate the troops, they ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

They hate the troops, they hate this country, they hate themselves. They are one of the enemies. We have many, but they're up there.

I guess no-one on the right... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I guess no-one on the right can point out how sending the troops to their death because they are under trained, and under equipped is supporting the troops?

That is a big problem, because if you can't do it here, how do you think it will play with the American people? Say good bye to the Republican party.

Marc, don't make stupid accusations, if can't back them up with facts.

Bob Woodward (hardly as Bus... (Below threshold)
marc:

Bob Woodward (hardly as Bush apologist) has it about right on chris matthews sunday show:

One of the things that we forget as we're caught in the heat of the current debate: this is a legal war. The Congress three to one in 2002 said, gave Bush the right to go to war. He decided to do it. So, you know what really amazes me is that Bush, and Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid don't get together and say, "We've got to come up with a bipartisan strategy and consensus on this." We're all in to a certain extent in this war. And we owe it to the troops.

If everyone's thinking about politics and not the troops on the ground. Those people are our surrogates, and we owe them everything, and we can't even reach political consensus in this country.


I think that people have to rise above politics and party here. And, think, I've talked to these people who have come back from Iraq, and in communication with some there, and they wonder: "What the hell is going on in America? What? You know, we're here, they sent us here. And we're talking about cutting off funding."

Even the Washington Post ha... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Even the Washington Post had to weigh in on the idiocy of this, well, idiot. The Dimocrats in Congress are going to have to get him to shut up...or repudiate him! 'Cause even the American public is bound to notice what this moron is spewing sooner or later.

Barney..Save it..Under trai... (Below threshold)
Ran:

Barney..Save it..Under trained my A$$.. under equipped?..BS!.. please try to understand.. for every death in combat, there ISN'T always a way it could have been avoided! Cept, of course.."Cut and Run".

Barney, Whatever yo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Barney,
Whatever you say can be considered as lies since you have been willing to promote and defend known liars and posting lies from know liberal sewage.
The liberal left is using the perfection fallacy to attack and slander the US military all the times.

I fail to understand why we... (Below threshold)
Jeff Irvin:

I fail to understand why we are talking about "supporting the troops".

As I understand it, the Congress gives the President the authority to go to war, and the money to prosecute those wars. If they can give him the authority to go to war why can they not cease to give him that authority?

Does anyone really think that George Bush would leave troops in Iraq without funding? How would he do this anyway? It is simply not politically or militarily possible?

So, if Congress cuts war spending this would not endanger troops. Cutting funding would end the war immediately. It would be logistically impossible to continue a war effort without funding.

Therefore, all this talk of "supporting the troops" is just as meaningless as non-binding resolutions against troop surges.

Ran, The under-trai... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Ran,
The under-trained and under-equipped troops are putting AlQ and the modern Nazis on the run. So Pelosi was asked about this success of the surge strategy. And what did she say? Oh, she implied that US troop was involved in ethnic cleansing.

These liberals can lie with a straight face. That 's why they can support such a despicable party like the Dem party. The party of FDR has fallen to a bottomless pit.

Lovie, since you are so big... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Lovie, since you are so big on liars, what do have to say with my earlier post regarding the lies of the Bush administration?

On FNS, Chris W. provided proof that the D. Feith fibbed on his show last week.

Feith BS'd about presenting non collaborated intelligence that Iraq was involved with al Qaida.

If Feith would lie so brazenly on national TV, you have to wonder how much the administration lied while providing off the record WND leaked intelligence to the American people?

Lovie, has your world crashed down around your ankles yet?

the war was 'lost' the mome... (Below threshold)
MinorRipper:

the war was 'lost' the moment the invasion started. now look at all the good we're doing in these videos:
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/winning-hearts-and-minds-part-three.html

"under trained and under eq... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

"under trained and under equiped"--the lefts sound byte of the week. Never heard it before this week when that traitorus SOB Murtha spoke it. Now all the kos kiddies rejects here are using it such as barneygoogle. Nothing but BS. Britt Hume said it best today--"Murtha does not have a clue about what is going on in the world.

Barney cutie, Still... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Barney cutie,
Still cannot break the habit of lying. Since you have been caught red-handed lying and posting lies from known liars. I will post this post from the Hugh Hewitt on the general subject of intelligence. So now what do you think about the despicable behavior of the liberals using the imperfect intelligence to provide propaganda for the terrorists and other enemies of America.

Barney Cutie, so are you saying that Clinton, the dem leaders, the UN, and the Europeans have been lying about the threat of Saddam, WMD, and terrorism?


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2868792&page=1

Let A Thousand Team Bs Bloom: Douglas Feith Deserves Our Thanks

Since the president lied so... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Since the president lied so brazenly that the liberal left was fully behind it in 1998. Barney Cutie, what are you going to do with such a blazen lie today from the liberal left?

http://usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/whouse/archive/1998/november/wh31103.htm

"Let me be clear," Clinton said, "what the U.S. objectives are:

"The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

"The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.

How traditional Americans w... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

How traditional Americans wish the left would say right now: "You know, this war has been badly handled by the Bush team. But, by golly, it IS important for the country that we win it. And it IS important that we help defend the duly elected government there. We don't want another genocide like Viet Nam. Let's get the job done. Bush can't run again in 2008."

under equipped?..BS!.. <... (Below threshold)
Brian:

under equipped?..BS!..

Ah, someone else on the right who doesn't know what they're talking about.

for every death in combat, there ISN'T always a way it could have been avoided!

And for too many, there is.

What will we get if we win ... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

What will we get if we win in Iraq?

Lovie:WALLACE: Now a... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Lovie:
WALLACE: Now a follow-up to our interview last Sunday with former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. Many of you asked us to check out the claim. Here's what he said to us.

FEITH: Nobody in our office said there was an operational relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. It's not correct. Words matter.

WALLACE: But it turns out he did make that case in a memo he sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee in October of '03. "The Weekly Standard," which saw the memo, described it this way. "Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training and explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda."


And Lovie, regarding the Clinton signed resolution, where does it say "invade"?

Just asking!

Now available for the treat... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Now available for the treatment and elimination of brain dead trolls, "Troll Be Gone". One spray of logic and reason, and the pesky bastards run screeching from the site. Be aware that most trolls will exhibit pants-wetting, bulging eyes, high pitched shrieking and of course cursing and swearing when sprayed.
avoid the fangs of trolls, as most are highly poisonous.

And Lovie, regarding the Cl... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

And Lovie, regarding the Clinton signed resolution, where does it say "invade"?
------------------------------------------
Barney cutie,
This was before 9/11. So we should stay the same as before 9/11. Yet Clinton had this to say

"The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.

Why do the liberals say the opposite now? Just want to know.

The United States... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else

LoveAmerica Immigrant, you know darn well when you post Democrats words regarding Iraq, it always kills a comment thread.

The only thing they ever come back with is "well Clinton didn't go to war and kill thousands". Which is always a weak argument since he did bomb Iraq on different occasions. You know, the great Satan bombing a Middle Eastern country while winning the hearts and minds of Islamo-fascists.

But given the block quote above, using that argument, then we know it was all talk and nothing more.

Hell, it is my dream to have everyone skippity-doo-da in flowery meadows everyday throughout the world. Because I want that, I guess I have great potential as a politician because I said it.

OMG, BarneyG200 ........ (Below threshold)
ohiovoter:

OMG, BarneyG200 .....

Feith failed to remember exactly what he said in a memo dated 3 years ago!?!?!?!?!?!?

I guess he qualifies for Tim Russert's job then. ;-)

Lovie, the difference is, C... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Lovie, the difference is, Clinton would have pulled it off, and not by killing 3000 Americans (and counting) and spending a trillion of our dollars.

What, no comment regarding the lies spread by FNS?

I await your spin.

Lovie, the differ... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Lovie, the difference is, Clinton would have pulled it off, and not by killing 3000 Americans (and counting) and spending a trillion of our dollars

Thank-you,.... that was a very reasoned thought out retort. It was deep and profound given Clinton's prowess for military matters.

Oh, and wow.....just eff'in wow.

"The United States favors a... (Below threshold)
Niccolo:

"The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else."

States that rise quickly, just as all the other things of nature that are born and grow rapidly, cannot have roots and ramifications; the first bad weather kills them.

Lovie, the differe... (Below threshold)
ohiovoter:
Lovie, the difference is, Clinton would have pulled it off, and not by killing 3000 Americans (and counting) and spending a trillion of our dollars.

Then, the obvious question is "why didn't he?"

BTW, are you talking about the same Clinton who couldn't get support to the troops in the "Black Hawk Down" incident in Somalia, aren't you?

Barney/Puke: you boys shou... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Barney/Puke: you boys should get Murtha, that stupid son of a bitch who wants the troops for Iraq in Okinawa, to listen to Patraeus.

Our General on the scene in Iraq is a registered Democrat (he must have been too busy to change it) and believes we can prevail in Iraq.

Jesus Lord you idiots are two parrots found in the room of some mentally incompetent failed Democrat who's waiting on an Alzheimers cure.

"Then, the obvious question... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Then, the obvious question is "why didn't he?"" Ohio

If you even bothered to read the link, you would know the answer to that. The resolution (passed by the Republican controlled Congress) provided funds to put pressure on the Saddam regime (by funding the opposition those whom seek to overthrow Saddam) to renounce WMD, and pass reforms. As long as the sanctions were kept in place, and the UN resolutions were kept in place, Saddam was kept in check until an opposition party took control.

Before you say it, as long as the US voted against the removal of the sanctions, the removal could not take place, so only Bush could do what you claim would have happened.

The assumption is that the ... (Below threshold)
John:

The assumption is that the war in Iraq is not going well...

I think it's going great, depending on who you ask.

Tens of billions of dollars are being funneled to defense related industries. Other billions of dollars are being funneled to service orginizations like Haliburton.

When Bremmer was in Iraq, one of the rules he implemented was to remove all restrictions on foreign ownership of companies, meaning we can buy Iraqi companies, and haul all the profits out of the country. This is good business for all kinds of our industries.

We couldn't just go in a sieze the oil fields like in the old days. What we needed was regime change, which was made public days after Bush's first inaguration. If Saddam wouldn't deal, what we needed was an elected government that could sign over the oil rights to us.

Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, of excellent quality and low production costs and the bigest winners will be the American firms Exxon-Mobile and Chevron, British BP-Amoco and Royal Dutch-Shell. The big 4 had been virtualy frozen out of the Iraq market during the 12 years of sanctions. Sure we got alot of Iraq oil during that time, but allways by purchasing through other foreign company intermediaries. Not enough profit was being made, and we needed to cut off our competition at the knees.

If the new proposed petroleum law goes through (and we expect it will), Iraq's revenue sharing will give the Iraqi people a small share, with 70% of the profits going to the big four oil companies above... For the next 30 years. ...which will keep the Iraqi people in an impoverished state for generations.

But we needed an elected government to do that to maintain an air of legitimacy.

We didn't give a rat's ass about bringing democracy to the Middle East. (We pushed for elections in Palestine, but they surprised us by electing a group we didn't like. Notice how fast we decided we didn't like "democracy"?)

We needed a government favorable to our demands. One that had the look and feel of legitimacy to keep the world government from suspecting us of stealing. We needed a government in Iraq that could and would "freely" sign over their rights for the next 30 years.

So, no... Are we failing? Nah. It's all going according to plan.

Barney Cutie, We ar... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Barney Cutie,
We are adults here. So we are not in the liberal sewage, so I am willing to give you and Chris Wallace a brownie point for catching Feith with the word "operational" in his report. Since Chris Wallace mentioned Weekly Standard as a source, I went there and found this. So can we agree that there is a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Why are liberals so afraid of acknowledging the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda? Saddam openly supported the Palestian terrorists against Is. Yet liberals are so determined to deny any link between Saddam and Al Qaeda? And with a straight face, you can tell me that Clinton can pull it off? So what are you going to do about this brazen lie? I am waiting for your spin?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/004/354tdeij.asp

Yes, There Is a Connection
The 9/11 Commission confirms Iraq-al Qaeda ties.
by Daniel McKivergan
07/22/2004 5:45:00 PM

With the release of the September 11 Commission report, some media outlets may ignore or mischaracterize the fact that the report offers more confirmation of Iraq-al Qaeda ties. It is especially noteworthy, however, that the previous staff report's finding of no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda has been significantly modified. While the commission found no evidence of a "collaborative operational relationship" for "carrying out attacks against the United States," they did find that the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda to be more extensive than many critics of the administration have been willing to admit. And, as the CIA's Counterterrorism Center previously remarked: "any indication of a relationship between these two hostile elements could carry great dangers to the United States."


Barney Cutie, So yo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Barney Cutie,
So you are saying that we can keep sanctions in place while the France, Germany, China, and Russia are getting the bribe from Saddam through the oil-for-food corruption?
Wow, are you trying to ignore another HUGE fact here?

John has it right. The who... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

John has it right. The whole thing is going according to plan. Kids die, politicians lie and corporations get rich.

Bush's non starter of an idea to escalate the war has had its first of many responses from the "other" occupants. TODAY in

BAGHDAD--A double car bombing has ripped through a crowded Baghdad market, killing at least 60 people and wounding more than 130 in a first vicious blow to the city's new US-led security operation.

"Where is the security plan?" wailed distraught relatives crowded outside the Iraqi capital's Kindi Hospital on Sunday, as fleets of ambulances and civilian trucks ferried the dead and dying into an overworked emergency room.""

Doesn't this woman get it? This is Bush's security plan. WE secure the oil you get bombed, fun game isn't it?

Foolish Americans......blowback will be enormous.

civil behavior, So ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

civil behavior,
So we may just as well surrender to the terrorists so that they won't blow up children and women any more. Since the terrorists threaten to kill more women and children in America, we might as well surrender to them. Otherwise, they will be mad and try to kill us?

Foolish civil behavior. He... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Foolish civil behavior. He thinks he makes sense. lol.

BTW, there is a huge opport... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

BTW, there is a huge opportunity for the liberals to apply Barney 's strategy to Iran. It is a known sponsor of terrorism and it is a mullahocracy. What did the liberals do to support the opposition party in Iran? Did the liberal left come out en masse to demonstrate on behalf of Iranian dissidents when Adm was here? Oops, sorry, I forgot that honesty is not the liberal "operational" lingo. It exists only in their propaganda.

civil, ONe more thi... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

civil,
ONe more thing: using your own example there, how should we protect every mall and every school in America PERFECTLY so that the terrorists won't ever be able to blow up our women and children?

<a href="http://www.investo... (Below threshold)
marc:

Unparalleled Perfidy

The party of John Murtha shamelessly seeks to defund and defeat U.S. troops on the battlefield and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Congress the terrorists wanted is doing their bidding.

There's a reason the founders of this country designated a single commander in chief and placed the responsibility to wage war in the hands of the president. We saw recently the futility of having 100 commanders in chief when the Senate tried to pass a resolution of disapproval of the war in Iraq and couldn't agree on the terms of our surrender.

Me thinks the Democrats, or is it the [dim]ocrats, have overplayed their hand and misread what the last election was about and what needs to be done now. (hint, it ain't pulling a Hillary bugout in 90 days or less)

Love America writes;<... (Below threshold)
John:

Love America writes;

BTW, there is a huge opportunity for the liberals to apply Barney 's strategy to Iran. It is a known sponsor of terrorism and it is a mullahocracy. What did the liberals do to support the opposition party in Iran? Did the liberal left come out en masse to demonstrate on behalf of Iranian dissidents when Adm was here? Oops, sorry, I forgot that honesty is not the liberal "operational" lingo. It exists only in their propaganda.

I don't think you were in this country yet for the 1979 Iranian revolution... It was against a puppet government promoted by the US. Back in the 50's Iran HAD a popular, democraticaly elected government. We overthrew it. (We don't really give a rat's ass about democracy in the Middle East.)

The CIA, using the Iranian embassy as a base, and Kermit Roosevelt as their primary operator waged an undercover campaign to stir up dissent. This was done at the request of Brittish Government and the company that would later become BP Oil(Brittish Petroleum).

Hundreds of Iranians were killed in order to create chaos which lead to the overthrow of their democratic government in 1953. The Shah of Iran, favorable to the US and Brittan was installed. He became increacingly autocratic and was very unpopular with the Iranian people.

Much of what you see in Iran since 1980 is the blow-back to the autocratic rule of the Shah. Problems that WE caused in a very dirty and underhanded fashon.

If you would like to educate youself, here is a non-partisan history of this potion of Iranian modern history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Modern_Iran:_From_Pahlavi_to_Islamic_Revolution_.281921-1979.29

Read the article, and then comment on it, please.

John, Thanks for gi... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

John,
Thanks for giving us the liberal logic again. All the atrocities committed by the mullahocracy of Iran are the faults of the US? I thought liberals were saying that the Arabs and Muslims in general are not capable of democracy now. So back in 1953, it should be quite sensible to deal with a more benign dictator, right?
Liberals then can deny their anti-American bias with a straight face.

John,
thanks again for confirming my observation about the anti-American attitude of the liberal left.

I am waiting for the left to teach Bush a lesson about how to change regime in Iran with sanctions and encouraging opposition parties etc... Their actions so far seem to betray their less than honest rhetoric.



Only slightly OT and well w... (Below threshold)
elisa:

Only slightly OT and well worth the read:

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 2007 By Gen LaGreca

Here is a bucket of pearls. Please overlook the fact that the author asks your help in casting them before a herd of swine. They are pearls nonetheless.--GR.

With a new Congress convening, it's time to recall the ideals of America as expressed by Thomas Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence. The following is a new version of the Declaration, updated to reflect the current usurpations and threats we face. It is an urgent call for our newly elected representatives to fulfill the promise of America envisioned by our Founders and for We, The People, to insist that they do.

When in the course of human events, a people find it necessary to rid themselves of a government that has abandoned the sound principles upon which it was founded and that increasingly threatens their lives and liberties, reason requires them to declare the causes of their discontent...

BTW, John do you know that ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

BTW, John do you know that there was a Soviet Union in 1953? And do you know that there were gulags in this communist utopia? And the Soviet Union was trying to spread this utopia around the world, esp the ME. So we simply shouldn't make them mad?

Mullah Cimoc say too much j... (Below threshold)
Mullah Cimoc:

Mullah Cimoc say too much jack bauer tv show make ameriki so stupid for hate the muslim, loving the torture, bow down for masters in tel aviv.

this all rupert murdoch tv show man mind control this way.
This evil doing for usa media , now control so few company. Benjamin Frankling not like this not free press now in usa amerika.

for please now google: mighty wurlitzer +cia

then aemriki people know not free press in usa now. just keep the ameriki so stupid for serve the master in tel aviv.

The president should order ... (Below threshold)
Scraprion:

The president should order the immediate removal of all military forces from the Middle East (every country) and then refuse to allow them to protect the cities in the U.S. as the terrorists destroy them. Maybe a couple of years of living with the fear that causes the cowards to live in a hole and $20 a gallon gas would wake the dhimmi's up. Na, BDS has progressed to total insanity in 99.44/100 % of them. They would hide and watch their children raped and beheaded and it would serve them right.
This country will pay for years for the cowardance displayed by the current dhimmi fools. Soon there will be an armed overthrow of the U.S. democrat led government by the people of the country and millions of dhimmi's will be slaughtered by their own families. Bury your head in the sand and watch it happen. There has never been and never will be a country survive that half of the population is cowards and traitors.

Love,You have no a... (Below threshold)
John:

Love,

You have no ability to absorb new information that does not agree with your world view, do you?

First off, did you read the article I sent you?

If not, why not?

How do you feel about the US government overthrowing democracies in other parts of the world with covert operations to create coups?

We have an interesting history with Iraq as well. We have supported eiether Iran, or Iraq in order to keep the other one weak, depending on our policy at the time.

You might want to learn about Iraqi modern history as well. The brutal dictator Saddam used to be our boy. Ever wonder why?

Lovie, you have no credibil... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Lovie, you have no credibility. Remember when you said this"

BTW, the war has been enormously successful and "easy" ...
Posted by LoveAmerica Immigrant | June 19, 2006 10:48 AM |

Lovie, if the war has been soooo "easy" why do we need a surge? Why did the President say that the surge was are best last chance?

Elisa,If you buy i... (Below threshold)
John:

Elisa,

If you buy into the concepts of that bogus Decleration, you understand very little about Thomas Jefferson.

This is not at all what Jefferson argued for.

If you are interested in learning about Thomas Jefferson, you might want to check out a Jefferson history buff such as author Thom Hartmann.

You might want to learn abo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

You might want to learn about Iraqi modern history as well. The brutal dictator Saddam used to be our boy. Ever wonder why?
------------------------------------------------
Do you know that the mullahs in Iran were trying to extend their mullahocracy throughout the ME? So what do you want the US to do? Invading Iran? Or overthrowing Saddam and stationed our troops there to protect Iraq from Iran?

So you think Iraq and Iran are both capable of democracy. So all the talk from liberals about the impossibility of democracy in Iraq is simply double talk?

Barney cutie, Do yo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Barney cutie,
Do you admit that there is a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda now? Or are you simply using the typical liberal tactic of spouting lies and moving on to the next one when debunked?

Let me know when you understand the word "honesty" and deal with the brazen lie that there is no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Until you own up to that lie, I don't have the time to keep debunking one lie after another. BTW, we are adults and need to do real work. So we don't have time to play your childish game. The evidence of the liberal sewage is clear for all of you to see. If you want to continue in that sewage, it is up to you. I need to go to bed. Good night and good luch kiddo.

Candidate Bush was right on... (Below threshold)

Candidate Bush was right on nation-building:

The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.

But all you conservatives who cheered these words in the 2000 debates seem to have forgotten why you were against using our troops for nation building in the first place.

Well, I'll remind me of what your position was back then. You were against using our troops for nation building because you believed that the purpose of the US military was to defeat our enemies in battle. Plain and simple, the military was for breaking stuff and killing people (remember how Rush was fond of saying that?). All of you loathed the very idea of expending the lives of the fine men and women of our military to bring freedom, democracy and the rule of law to a foreign land.

How do I know this? Because I was one of you back then. I heard the words of candidate Bush in the 2000 debate and voted for him in 2000. I supported the invasion of Iraq because I believed there was a threat to the US there and we needed to deal with it.

Somewhere along the line, we lost track of the original mission (which has largely been accomplished) and became embroiled in a nation building effort that has no end in sight. We are trying to bring democracy to people who don't understand it, don't believe in it, haven't earned it, and refuse to fight for it.

Refusing to recognize this glaring reality doesn't mean you are "supporting the troops". What it means is that you as conservatives have forgotten one of the core principles that defined what it meant to be a conservative. Conservatives believe that people should be self-motivated, self-reliant and independent. What we are doing in Iraq is the very antithesis of this philosophy. We have a country that is entirely dependent on us, totally lacks self-reliance, and expects us to protect them from all the evils in the world and themselves for an indefinite period of time. Like the welfare mother who is entirely dependent on government handouts, the Iraqis will keep accepting the sacrifice of our troops for their welfare as long as they can get away with it. It's time to plug the plug.


The installation of the Sha... (Below threshold)
epador:

The installation of the Shah was a response to the nationalization of British oil concerns (which in a way I am sure you could say were originally stolen from the Persian people - just like our land was wrested from the natives who inhabited it before us). Blame the Republican President Eisenhower for our support with MI-5. However, I didn't recall Kennedy or Johnson offering to re-establish the socialist democratically elected government there. Our country's strength over the years has not been based on platitudes alone, but on strong business actions often overriding ethics. So get over it.

The point is where we go from here, right now, and into the future. We are in a mess in the Middle East, a mess of our (US and Europe) own making going back almost a Century. And our sons and daughters are dying to try to deal with that mess made generations ago. Are we going to take responsibility and do something that will be painful, hard and unpopular but ultimately benefit not only ourselves and our future grandchildren, or are we going to cut and run, leaving an unfinished business that will not only lead to more genocide and likely set the stage for a horrendous world conflict between Islam and everyone else?

We are fighting an enemy, fighting our past wrongs, and fighting amongst ourselves with the approach being fostered by Murtha and his lot. Its a losing strategy for all in our country.

You have no ability to ... (Below threshold)
marc:

You have no ability to absorb new information that does not agree with your world view, do you? First off, did you read the article I sent you? If not, why not? Posted by John

Let see how well you can read John. And note this is from Jimmy the Dhimmi's own website then ask yourself what kind of democracy was in place, then ask yourself why Carter welcomed the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini with open arms declaring they were would be a "religion based government."

Early in the 1960s, the Shah announced social and economic reforms but refused to grant broad political freedom. Iranian nationalists condemned his U.S. supported regime and his "westernizing" of Iran. During rioting in 1963, the Shah cracked down, suppressing his opposition. Among those arrested and exiled was a popular religious nationalist and bitter foe of the United States, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Between 1963 and 1979, the Shah spent billions of oil dollars on military weapons. The real price of military strength was the loss of popular support. Unable to sustain economic progress and unwilling to expand democratic freedoms, the Shah's regime collapsed in revolution. On January 16, 1979, the Shah fled Iran, never to return.

The exiled Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran in February 1979 and whipped popular discontent into rabid anti-Americanism. When the Shah came to America for cancer treatment in October, the Ayatollah incited Iranian militants to attack the U.S. On November 4, the American Embassy in Tehran was overrun and its employees taken captive. The hostage crisis had begun.

Wow, Larkin, you were busy ... (Below threshold)
epador:

Wow, Larkin, you were busy typing while I was too. However your attempt at constructing an analogy to tug at the hearts of conservatives falls short of the reality test. There are plenty of Iraqi's who'd love to have the fighting and murder stop and get on with their lives. The extremist and criminal elements of their society, in concert with external forces from Syria, Iran and AQ, are doing their damnedest to undermine any attempt to establish democracy. Kinda like the Liberal folks doing their damnedest to keep the poor, illegal and disadvantaged dependent upon their politics for survival (ensuring a demographic base voter block).

Love,You are still... (Below threshold)
John:

Love,

You are still not answering my question. Did you read the history article, or not.

The bottom line is that the neo con agenda is not to promote democracy. It's to promote a government beholden to us. The neo cons used to just prop up dictators, but they learned that "democracy" sells better the the American public.

So John, we should support ... (Below threshold)
epador:

So John, we should support a force of rule that is not friendly to us?

Marc,The quote fro... (Below threshold)
John:

Marc,

The quote from Carter you provided has nothing whatsoever in common with your statement...

"ask yourself why Carter welcomed the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini with open arms declaring they were would be a "religion based government."


The lefties are like childr... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

The lefties are like children. They think they can kiss it and make it well as soon as they are in full power. I guess it's easy to forget (if you are retarded) the thousands that have died as a result of the last left winger (who kissed everything but a wound) to occupy the white house. Almost 3,000 of them right here in the good old USA.

Epador,We would no... (Below threshold)
John:

Epador,

We would not take kindly to foreign agents attempting to overthrow our government or meddle in our affairs. Would it surprise you that other people in the world would take offense when we do it to them?

Regarding Iraq today, what side Suni or Shia are we supporting? Clearly they are each fighting in a power struggle to control the country and it's wealth.

Scrappy, You're a ... (Below threshold)
John:

Scrappy,

You're a hoot. Lemmie see... Who was the president when the 3,000 victims died here? Hmmmm.... Same guy that's president when the 3,000+ heros died over there....

Are you taking your meds?

"how should we protect .... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"how should we protect ...

LOL, Hey LAI , Civil Behavior , Barney and the rest of the pud wackers like them are no better than the terrorists. They are just a pussified version with the same amount of hate. They will never protect our Country from our enemies, They see them easy recruits for the Democrat Party. Speaks volumes the fact that 85% of FELONS VOTE for the RATS.

This is the kind of scene we have to look forward to but on a much larger scale if we allow this business of treason to continue.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/Carisma84/crash/halloween5.jpg

Do you have a point Joh... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Do you have a point John ? Of course not , You taking your meds?

Thanks for pointing out the fact that President Bush didn't put his pecker before Our Country.

Now available for the tr... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Now available for the treatment and elimination of brain dead trolls, "Troll Be Gone".

Woo-hoo! No more jhow66 or Rob!

The president should ord... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The president should order the immediate removal of all military forces from the Middle East (every country) and then refuse to allow them to protect the cities in the U.S. as the terrorists destroy them.

The military is prohibited from operating on American Soil, per Posse Comitatus. Also, all supposed disruptions of terrorist plots in the US has been accomplished by law enforcement, not military. So your point is... well, pointless.

<a href="http://wi... (Below threshold)
Brian:
now is the time to get serious and time to put America before party.

anti-war leftists have been undermining this country's military for a long time now.

Well, that didn't last very long!

Barney, Sweetie ....I... (Below threshold)
ohiovoter:

Barney, Sweetie ....

If you even bothered to read the link, you would know the answer to that.

This is your ENTIRE post from which I got the quote.

Lovie, the difference is, Clinton would have pulled it off, and not by killing 3000 Americans (and counting) and spending a trillion of our dollars.

What, no comment regarding the lies spread by FNS?

I await your spin.

Had you bothered to POST A LINK, I may have read it. Lovely spin though .... LOL!

The resolution (passed by the Republican controlled Congress) provided funds to put pressure on the Saddam regime (by funding the opposition those whom seek to overthrow Saddam) to renounce WMD, and pass reforms. As long as the sanctions were kept in place, and the UN resolutions were kept in place, Saddam was kept in check until an opposition party took control.

I'm sorry - I assumed that you knew something about the situation in Iraq prior to the end of the Clinton Administration. You may want to google "Oil for Food Scandal" and see what comes up. Under the "sanctions" and the UN care, Sadaam did pretty much what he wanted while his people starved. He also fired on the US and GB planes and financially supported the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who killed Israeli civilians while under those sanctions that 'kept him in check'.

Before you say it, as long as the US voted against the removal of the sanctions, the removal could not take place, so only Bush could do what you claim would have happened.

I have to say your comments are amusing. For the 4th time in TWO DAYS, I have heard from commentators here that a 'Democrat couldn't do something because those mean Republicans wouldn't let him.her'.

I am reminded of the Chair of my Master's Program in Organizational Management. He always said that when an employee said 'so and so wouldn't let me be in charge it was a sure sign that the employee has no idea how to lead anything.

That professor, BTW, was adamantly and completely opposed to the war in Iraq. I know this not because of anything he said in class - even in the Ethics class he taught - but because, when the college piped in Bush's pre-Iraq national address just before class, we had the conversation then. He never mentioned his personal views during class and provided various views in the readings assigned.

He was also a Mennonite and quite literally would have given his own life before fighting in any war.

I know that you conveniently ignored the rest of the comment from which you mined my quote. The rest of it involved the question as to this was the same Clinton who left the troops in the streets of Somalia to fight it out on their own.

If Clinton were the miracle worker you claimed. then he would have also had the guts to take charge and not whine (per your comments) about the Republicans 'not letting him lead'.

If you would like ... (Below threshold)
ohiovoter:
If you would like to educate youself, here is a non-partisan history of this potion of Iranian modern history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Modern_Iran:_From_Pahlavi_to_Islamic_Revolution_.281921-1979.29

John, I won't comment on the "non-partisian" comment since it was obviously a joke. As far as a "Wiki" source though .... couldn't you find a "real" source for what you want to say?

We all know how 'accurate' a "Wiki" source ... isn't. (And, no, I don't use it as a source either.)

As to your view

The islamofacists hated us ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

The islamofacists hated us with all their being before September. They stated many, many times they want all Jews and infidels (westerners) killed. We, as a people are less then animals in their eyes. Now that we are in Iraq and took the fight to them, the lefties believe they are really mad now. How juvenile. To get rid of a bully, confront hard and fast. That is a life lesson. Wake up lefties, or you will be looking towards the east 6 times a day to pray, or have your head removed. ww

I don't believe we're suppo... (Below threshold)
epador:

I don't believe we're supporting one side, the Kurds, the Shia or the Sunni. Any more than I support Baptists over the Jews when it comes to national policy. Please respond with something thoughtful, save this tripe for your vomitorium.

[For those of you who don't... (Below threshold)
epador:

[For those of you who don't scroll, that was pointed at John]

ohio, you talk a lot, but p... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

ohio, you talk a lot, but provide no evidence.

Please show me how Saddam could get the sanctions lifted without the US vote in the security council? It is a simple request.

AS far as "Food for Oil" scandal, do you mean this scandal?

Feb. 7, 2007
Waxman and a hearing witness, special inspector general for Iraq Stuart Bowen Jr., criticized Bremer for failing to install accounting systems that would have forced Iraqi ministries to account for up to $12 billion in Iraq's funds. The money came from a United Nations Oil For Food program and seized Iraqi assets, but fell under Bremer's control.

Or, how about this scandal?

Feb. 14, 2007
WASHINGTON - (AP) About $10 billion has been squandered by the U.S. government on Iraq reconstruction aid because of contractor overcharges and unsupported expenses, and federal investigators warned Thursday that significantly more taxpayer money is at risk.

Well, that is about $22-billion dollars in tax payer money stolen by the criminal bush regime? Yes, we have to replace the $12-billion lost by Bremer (Medal of Freedom time?).

If "Oil for Food" was a good enough reason to invade Iraq as you indicate, than I have 22-billion reasons Bush should be removed from office.

Mismanagement is mismanagem... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Mismanagement is mismanagement. Except in the UN oil for food scandal, it meant that Iraqis directly suffered due to lack of food or medicine.

BarneyG2000 ....Yo... (Below threshold)
ohiovoter:

BarneyG2000 ....

You are here trying to pretend like you know something about Iraq and don't even know about the UN and Sadaam Hussein's corrupt dealings, under the 'Oil for Food" program, while Iraq was still under UN sanctions?

Yikes!

It does, however, explain why you don't appear to know much about the actual situation in Iraq over the last decade or so.

As to the other ....

YOU CLAIMED that:

Lovie, the difference is, Clinton would have pulled it off, and not by killing 3000 Americans (and counting) and spending a trillion of our dollars.

Now, you are asking how the US vote against sanctions in Iraq could have been lifted?

You claimed that Clinton "would have pulled it off, and not by killing 3000 Americans (and counting) and spending a trillion of our dollars", but you don't know how he, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES could have any influence over the US's vote in Security Council?

Apparently even you don't think that he is such a miracle worker either.

Protection of our own count... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Protection of our own country starts by not invading someone else's unless asked or through proven provocation.

PERIOD.

Foolish Americans.

In my above post, this was ... (Below threshold)
ohiovoter:

In my above post, this was BarneyG2000's comment, not mine:

Lovie, the difference is, Clinton would have pulled it off, and not by killing 3000 Americans (and counting) and spending a trillion of our dollars.
This is how the miracle wor... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:

This is how the miracle worker Clinton worked with the UN during "Operation Desert Fox"

Remember, Clinton bypassed the UN and kicked inspectors out. France, Russia or China was completely caught off guard.

Oh, and.... "Phew"....just in the nick of time....only 12 hours were left before impeachment proceedings began.

French Reaction:

First, the US decision to bomb Iraq was made without the prior consent of the United Nations Security Council. This is a "legal" mistake, as France believes that the only body with the authority to make decisions regarding Iraq is the Security Council.

Second, the decision to strike was based on the report made by UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler, which stated that Iraq did not allow the UNSCOM inspectors to complete their missions. However, this position has been challenged by Mr. Butler's French and Russian advisers, as well as by the report produced by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which reaches the opposite conclusion. Further, Mr. Butler's decision to withdraw UNSCOM personnel from Iraq before the strike without prior consultation with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan or the Security Council is another "legal" mistake that has been severely criticized by Minister of Foreign Affairs Vedrine.

Third, the strike was not justified. Even thought Saddam Hussein did not cooperate "sufficiently" with UNSCOM personnel, he did not create a real crisis.

Finally, the strike may invalidate UNSCOM's work, which is broadly considered to be positive, since it has allowed the destruction of more weapons over the past few years than were destroyed in the 1991 Gulf War.

Russian Reaction:

The key criticism today is that the air strikes were undertaken before the UN Security Council could formally review the report by Richard Butler, meaning that there was no formal endorsement of his findings and thus no automatic right to use force.

Chinese Reaction:

The Chinese Government harshly condemned the US and British air strikes on Iraq this week. China's UN Ambassador Qin Huasen was reportedly very angry when he emerged from a Security Council session Wednesday evening after learning the attacks had already begun. "There is absolutely no excuse or pretext to use force against Iraq," Qin said. The Chinese Ambassador noted that the US and British military strikes "violated the UN charter and the norms governing international law." He added, "the leader of UNSCOM has played a dishonorable role in this crisis" by conspiring to provide the United States and Britain with a pretext for their attacks.

ohio, I don't even know wha... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

ohio, I don't even know what you are talking about? Clinton would have never invaded Iraq, unless there was a "real" threat. How do I know this? Because he never did.

The sanctions were working, and Clinton would have never voted to have the sanctions lifted (via the security council). Neither would Bush, that is why he invaded when he did (thousands inspection came up negative).

Sanctions, or the Cold War model has worked over and over:
-Soviets
-Vietnam
-China

All of those once rogue nations are now are trading partners.

Sanctions are working against North Korea (we hope) and Cuba.

While bush has our military dying in Iraq, al Qaeda is growing stronger in Pakistan.

Clinton would hav... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Clinton would have never invaded Iraq, unless there was a "real" threat. How do I know this? Because he never did

Clinton Backs Bush on Iraq War But Questions Invasion's Timing

Although Clinton questioned the timing, he backed the war thing. Even though the UN questioned Clinton's timing in launching ODF as per reactions from three permanent members of the Security Council.

The sanctions... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:

The sanctions were working, and Clinton would have never voted to have the sanctions lifted (via the security council). Neither would Bush, that is why he invaded when he did (thousands inspection came up negative)

"LATE HOUR"

Blix also warned that Iraq had not shown enough support to the inspectors and warned that unless it showed a sudden change of heart, next week's report to the Security Council would reflect his frustrations.

"What has not worked is for the Iraqi side either to present prohibited items for destruction or present evidence that they are finished," Blix told reporters after talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in London.

"We hope at this late hour...that they will come to a positive response. If they do not do that then our report next Friday will not be what we would like it to be."

Gee Jumpin, why did you quo... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Gee Jumpin, why did you quote the Jan '03 report and not the more extensive 3/7/03 report? Maybe because of these juicy items?

On March 7, Mr Blix pleaded for more time to complete his mission and reported that lethal weapons such as Samoud 2 missiles were being destroyed.

Mr Blix said last night: "The things found were all small things. We found dozens of munitions for chemical weapons. They were empty and in a site declared. In relation to Samoud that went beyond 150 kilometres, they (the US and Britain) said it was beyond the permitted limit but I did not feel particularly indignant about that."

On the same day, the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, reported that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any nuclear weapons or was in the process of acquiring them.

"We reported consistently that we found no weapons of mass destruction and I carried out inspections at sites given to us by US and British intelligence and not found anything."

From my link:<blockqu... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:

From my link:

In February 1998, after Hussein blocked U.N. inspectors from entering Iraq, Clinton warned: "What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act? Or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal
"Although Clinton questione... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Although Clinton questioned the timing, he backed the war thing." by jumpin.

Another lie from your link:

Former president Bill Clinton said he agreed with President Bush's decision to confront Iraq about its potential weapons programs, but thought the administration erred in starting a war in 2003 rather than allowing United Nations weapons inspectors longer to carry out their work.

BarneyG2000,I don'... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:

BarneyG2000,

I don't give any credence whatsoever to anything in regards to stretching out the inspections. Iraq was not fully cooperating and still never complied with proof of destruction of items under UN mandated control.

Not only that, many do not know about this interview Saddam granted to an Egyptian newspaper during the inspection process.

Nassar: Mr. President, do you think that time is working in your favor or against you?

Saddam: No doubt, time is working for us. We have to buy some more time, and the American-British coalition will disintegrate because of internal reasons and because of the pressure of public opinion in the American and British street. Nations know the truth and are more capable of understanding than the leaders who are preoccupied with the Zionist conspiracies that are hatched by the media, conspiracies that blind those leaders.

Note: He was buying time so the anti-war left and he would prevail. Mmmmmmm~interesting dontcha think?

BarneyG2000....said<b... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:

BarneyG2000....said

Former president Bill Clinton said he agreed with President Bush's decision to confront Iraq about its potential weapons programs, but thought the administration erred in starting a war in 2003 rather than allowing United Nations weapons inspectors longer to carry out their work

I am not sure why Clinton never followed his own advice since he pulled the Butler inspectors out in 1998 when other members of the Security Council thought they were going just fine.

Clinton started bombing wit... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:

Clinton started bombing within 30 days of Butler inspectors returning to Iraq....why didn't he give them more time when other members of the Security Council said inspections were working....

I'll explain....

It was a thing called:

"Modalities for the Inspection of Sensitive Sites".

Inspectors were being denied entry early on in the inspection process to areas the Iraqis deemed sensitive areas that violated Iraq's sovereignty. Such as Palaces, army barracks, Baath Party Headquarter etc.

So the UN negotiated with Iraq and came up with "Modalities for the Inspection of Sensitive Sites".

This agreement allowed for only four inspectors at a time to these sensitive areas.

There were many different incidents concerning these modalities but for brevities sake I'll stick to the point of inspectors returning prior to Operation Desert Fox.

In mid November 1998 the Secretary General himself negotiated with Iraq to get inspectors back in to avert a military confrontation.

Iraq agreed with the stipulation that that the modalities stayed intact. Meaning Iraq would allow inspections anywhere but maintained that their numbers were limited to certain areas.

As soon as inspectors were on the ground one of the first things Butler did without consultation with the Security Council and on behalf of the United States was to nullify the modalities.

After Butler, without UN consultation nullified their agreement, he would go to a site considered sensitive and under "Modalities for the Inspection of Sensitive Sites" rules.

But Butler's teams were given access. But Butler and Clinton changed the rules and demanded that they go in with any number of inspectors.

Clinton then claimed inspectors were being blocked from checking areas out.

So the first 30 days of inspectors returning Clinton was already bombing,

Hope this helps.......

Note: He was buying time so... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Note: He was buying time so the anti-war left and he would prevail. Mmmmmmm~interesting dontcha think?

Posted by: Jumpinjoe

So, let me get this straight. Bush was going to cave to the anti-war left, when no war existed (interview was pre invasion)? Since when does Bush cave to public opinion? I thought that is why you righties love him so much?

Besides, public opinion was in favor of continuing the inspection, and against invasion, so you see, your logic is totally ass-backwards.

Jumpin, Operation Desert Fo... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Jumpin, Operation Desert Fox was a complete success. After the bombing, Saddam gave-up any hope of building a WMD arsenal.

As proof, no WMD or WMD programs were found in Iraq.

Jumpin, Operation... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Jumpin, Operation Desert Fox was a complete success

You mean other than inspectors not being allowed back in Iraq as mandated by numerous UN Resolutions for 5 years.

Other than 5000 Iraqis a month dropping dead from sanctions as reported by UNICEF.

Oh....and this is the kicker.....you mean other than the Commander in Chief of that operation saying he still believed Saddam had WMD capabilities afterwards and was a threat to the United States and the region.

If Bill Clinton himself read your reply, he would say.....WTF? I did? Wow, cool, they'll believe anything even if I didn't say it myself.

Don't get your hopes up "br... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Don't get your hopes up "brianless" it didn't work. I am still here to gall your ass(the one under your nose) because I and everyone else see you for what you are--a spineless bootlicking liberal cut and run coward. Need any more advice let me know.

Oh yeah about "johnie" (John), be a little more understanding of him as he used to be a part of the "media" and went to some school (reform).

So, let me get th... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
So, let me get this straight. Bush was going to cave to the anti-war left, when no war existed (interview was pre invasion)?

I don't believe there was any ambiguity in Saddam's statement even though you pretend there was. And yes that interview was given during the inspection time period.

Saddam was counting on the American left wing to save his genocidal tyrant self.

Even though that didn't happen, he would still want to kill you if he could. Meaning I don't think Saddam would have issued any fawning "Thank You's" for your help.

Besides, public o... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Besides, public opinion was in favor of continuing the inspection

Public opinion as per an election gave President Bush the position of CiC.

As CiC it is not mandated that opinion polls be used in gauging tactical moves.

Scroll up and read the reactions to operation Desert Fox. A majority of Permanent members of the UN Security Council thought Clinton's actions were criminal.

Does that count?

So John, we should... (Below threshold)
OregonMuse:
So John, we should support a force of rule that is not friendly to us?

I notice that John didn't answer this question, he just changed the subject. That's the usual Chomskyite tactic when you confront them with facts that don't fit their world view

He was complaining about the eeeevil CIA conspiring with BP (i.e "Big Oil" -- another leftard boogeyman) to overthrow the elected Iranian prime minister, as if this coup somehow happened in a vacuum and Mossadegh did not in fact nationalize (i.e. confiscate) British oil concerns. We are also to ignore the fact that the world was right in the middle of the Cold War and Iran, due to its proximity with the USSR, was ripe to fall within its sphere of influence, and there would have been nothing that would have pleased the Kremlin more than an oil-rich pro-Soviet state right in the Middle East.

So that was a brief overview of the geopolitical game as it was being played out back then. It was ugly and messy and required this country to consort with some pretty unsavory characters. But never mind all that. It's all about evil neocons trying to get their grubby hands on oil revenues. Thus Chomsky has written, and thus it is always believed by his followers.

As proof, no WMD or WMD pro... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

As proof, no WMD or WMD programs were found in Iraq.
-------------------------------------------------
Barney cutie hasn't owned up the brazen lie that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. So he moved on the next lie. Unfortunately, Barney is less honest than even the liberal sewage NYT. That is a record for cutie.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/13/101911.shtml
N.Y. Times: Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/nyt-iraq-was-within-a-year-of-building-bomb-in-2002
Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away


Scrappy is correct. The Le... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Scrappy is correct. The Left are a bunch of children, throwing a tantrum, changing the subject, wishing for something that doesn't exist in reality.

That's why they were so pro-socialist/-communist in the time prior to the fall of the Iron Curtain in late 80's/'90's.

Meantime, they don't notice the large turbaned-dude in the back of the room who wants him, his family, his friends dead. Stupid sons of bitches.

Barney cutie hasn't owne... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Barney cutie hasn't owned up the brazen lie that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

What?! Are you calling Bush a liar?!

Brian, I am calling... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Brian,
I am calling you and Barney a liar. So you are saying that there is no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

Wow--no one from the left i... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Wow--no one from the left is denying the headline of this thread--"The left is Rooting for America's Defeat in Iraq." You sad people must be so proud....

Lovie, from your links:<br ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Lovie, from your links:
Last fall, IAEA director Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei confirmed that "nuclear-related materials" had gone missing from monitored sites,

Lovie you dumb ass, "last fall" (according to the article) was 2004. The Bush administration lost the nuclear related materials! His incompetence lead to the shipping of WMD technology to Syria or Iran (my guess).

On your other site, the Bush administration release documents that could be used to build a nuclear device. You are so stupid; you don't even know that you are indicting the President for incompetence.

And before you even start, no the above does not prove that Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions. The Nuke material was stored, sealed an monitored by the UN per the UN agreement, and the documents were pre Gulf war.

They hate the troop... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

They hate the troops, they hate this country, they hate themselves. They are one of the enemies. We have many, but they're up there.

Jo, you must be one angry, belligerent woman with an ugly personality. Every one of your posts seethes with liberal-hating nastiness and little to nothing else of substance.

If you're married, I feel sorry for your husband and your kids. If you're not, it wouldn't be so hard to understand.

Try forming a debate without the nastiness if you can. And, by the way, you're speaking about the majority of this country when you call us an enemy. Obviously, you're so wrapped up in your hatred it's made you delusional.

Either you are incredibly s... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Either you are incredibly stupid, or you are a spoof. What "Links" are you talking about?

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

A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.

[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

"There was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist operation," former State Department intelligence official Greg Thielmann said this week.

But than again you did say this:

BTW, the war has been enormously successful and "easy" ...
Posted by LoveAmerica Immigrant | June 19, 2006 10:48 AM |

Barney Cutie, No ma... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Barney Cutie,
No matter how you spin, the liberal sewage NYT in an effort to attack Bush before the election admitted that Saddam is one year away from the making the atomic bomb.
Saddam didn't violate any UN resolutions? Do you stand by that assertion? If it can be proven false now, will you be willing to own up to it or the lie that there is no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

Cutie, do you admit now that Iraq had a WMD program?

Either you are incredibly s... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Either you are incredibly stupid, or you are a spoof. What "Links" are you talking about?

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

A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.

[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

"There was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist operation," former State Department intelligence official Greg Thielmann said this week.

But than again you did say this:

BTW, the war has been enormously successful and "easy" ...
Posted by LoveAmerica Immigrant | June 19, 2006 10:48 AM |

BArney Cutie, From y... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

BArney Cutie,
From your own source, Weekly Standard via Chris Wallace. Saddam will not be stupid enough to openly admit that he is helping Al Qadea to attack the US. He would be happy to do so under the table. Using your own words, either you are too stupid to know that or too dense to acknowledge the truth. No matter how you spin, cutie, you have been caught in spreading a lie. Time to own to it. Hope you can be better than NYT, but looks like you cannot even cross that low threshhold.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/004/354tdeij.asp

Yes, There Is a Connection
The 9/11 Commission confirms Iraq-al Qaeda ties.
by Daniel McKivergan
07/22/2004 5:45:00 PM


With the release of the September 11 Commission report, some media outlets may ignore or mischaracterize the fact that the report offers more confirmation of Iraq-al Qaeda ties. It is especially noteworthy, however, that the previous staff report's finding of no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda has been significantly modified. While the commission found no evidence of a "collaborative operational relationship" for "carrying out attacks against the United States," they did find that the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda to be more extensive than many critics of the administration have been willing to admit. And, as the CIA's Counterterrorism Center previously remarked: "any indication of a relationship between these two hostile elements could carry great dangers to the United States."

Jumpin, Operation... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Jumpin, Operation Desert Fox was a complete success

Remember, before you read the block quote below, Hillary claimed she did her own homework.

Also, this is proof Mr. And Ms. Clinton are not sleeping together. You would have thought during all that pillow talk Bill would have let her in on the fact that his "just 12 hours before impeachment proceedings began" Operation Desert Fox was a complete success.


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Barney cutie, You c... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Barney cutie,
You cut and paste my comment without even the link to the original post. Is that an honest way to do it? Are you too stupid to understand what I wrote or too dense to acknowledge the truth again?

You have been caught spreading the lies from known liars like Wilson, Brock, and now two more. ARe you willing to own up your own lies or simply trying to move on to other lies?

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

Oh....then disregard below quote:

"There were contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq, going back clear to the early 1990s when Osama bin Laden was in Sudan, then when he was in Afghanistan. I don't think there's any dispute about that." - EX-REP LEE HAMILTON, (DEMOCRAT), 9-11 COMMISSION VICE-CHAIR, ON ABCs "This Week"
Jumpinjoe,Key word... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Jumpinjoe,

Key word: collaborative.

civil, Meaningless ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

civil,
Meaningless distinction. From Barney 's source via Chris Wallace

And, as the CIA's Counterterrorism Center previously remarked: "any indication of a relationship between these two hostile elements could carry great dangers to the United States."

Pre-Bush Timeline of Ira... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Key word: collabo... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Key word: collaborative

OK then.... The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties

For nearly two years, starting in 1996, the CIA monitored the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. The plant was known to have deep connections to Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation, and the CIA had gathered intelligence on the budding relationship between Iraqi chemical weapons experts and the plant's top officials. The intelligence included information that several top chemical weapons specialists from Iraq had attended ceremonies to celebrate the plant's opening in 1996. And, more compelling, the National Security Agency had intercepted telephone calls between Iraqi scientists and the plant's general manager.
The clincher, however, came later in the spring of 1998, when the CIA secretly gathered a soil sample from 60 feet outside of the plant's main gate. The sample showed high levels of O-ethylmethylphosphonothioic acid, known as EMPTA, which is a key ingredient for the deadlynerve agent VX. A senior intelligence official who briefed reporters at the time was asked which countries make VX using EMPTA. "Iraq is the only country we're aware of," the official said. "There are a variety of ways of making VX, a variety of recipes, and EMPTA is fairly unique
That briefing came on August 24, 1998, four days after the Clinton administration launched cruise-missile strikes against al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan (Osama bin Laden's headquarters from 1992-96), including the al Shifa plant. The missile strikes came 13 days after bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed 257 people--including 12 Americans--and injured nearly 5,000. Clinton administration officials said that the attacks were in part retaliatory and in part preemptive. U.S. intelligence agencies had picked up "chatter" among bin Laden's deputies indicating that more attacks against American interests were imminent.

The al Shifa plant in Sudan was largely destroyed after being hit by six Tomahawk missiles. John McWethy, national security correspondent for ABC News, reported the story on August 25, 1998:

Before the pharmaceutical plant was reduced to rubble by American cruise missiles, the CIA was secretly gathering evidence that ended up putting the facility on America's target list. Intelligence sources say their agents clandestinely gathered soil samples outside the plant and found, quote, "strong evidence" of a chemical compound called EMPTA, a compound that has only one known purpose, to make VX nerve gas.

Then, the connection:

The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program


Jumipjoe, There are... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jumipjoe,
There are even more info than I realize. For me, it doesn't take much brain to see a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

So your shocking evidence i... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

So your shocking evidence is a few low level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda? Oh-My-God! What would you do with real information of actual overt and covert support? I am talking about funding and providing intelligence. See below:

"Following the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union in December 1979, the U.S. administration, first under Carter and then under Reagan, launched a massive support and training campaign for the Afghan freedom fighters, or "mujahideen" (holy warriors), as they came to be known. In addition to overt and covert funding operations by various U.S. governmental agencies for the mujahideen, a plethora of private "aid" agencies, think-tanks, and other odd outfits joined the fray..."

So there you have it. The US government (mostly under Reagan) provided military support ot the Taliban! The same persons that OBL worked with, lived and plotted the 9/11 terror attacks, and Reagan was behind it all?

If you express outrage and cause to invade over a few contacts by Iraq in the mid 90's, than why don't you apply the same outrage to Reagan for his ties in the 80's?

Barney, Still try t... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Barney,
Still try to weasel out of a lie! So weak and so st*id. The Soviet Union with the collaboration of the liberal left in the US made life difficult for us in VN. So we should stand by and let the Soviet Union off the hook in Afghanistan? BTW, when was the massive demonstration against the Soviet invastion of Afghanistan. Can we agree that the anti-war left is hypocritical?

What 's wrong with the liberal sewage that they have to turn a blind eyes towards a relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda?

As long as you believe that... (Below threshold)
Publicus:

As long as you believe that the "anti-war left" is motivated by desire for an American defeat, you will be blindsided by the millions of Americans who oppose the war. You won't understand them. You won't understand their current and growing popularity.

You will believe that millions of Americans are traitors that want terrorists to destroy them and their families. They will seem to be CRAZY and beyond your comprehension.

I certainly understand the position of those who support the war. But most of them don't understand the position of those who oppose it. That will hurt war supporters

If you express ou... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
If you express outrage and cause to invade over a few contacts by Iraq in the mid 90's, than why don't you apply the same outrage to Reagan for his ties in the 80's?

Huh?........here I thought we were responding to the denial that there never were any contacts whatsoever.

Not just that, no one claimed that was a reason to remove Saddam.

Well, at least you admit now....my work is done here.

Thank you all........

Publicus, It is har... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Publicus,
It is hard for me to look at the words alone. Action is what counts for me. Honest anti-war folks should condemn the hypocrisy of the liberal left. Otherwise, it is difficult to know who is honest or not.

Publicus, I underst... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Publicus,
I understand for many people who are busy with their lives so they don't pay much attention esp after 6 years without an attack on the mainland. But for democratic politicians, their action is disgraceful and despicable. Honest anti-war folks should condemn this disgraceful action.

From Barney 's source again

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/292ssqwn.asp

The Democrats' 'Slow-Bleed' Strategy
A disgraceful moment in Congress.
...
Politicians often say foolish things. Members of both parties criticize cavalierly and thunder thoughtlessly. They advance irresponsible suggestions and embrace mistaken policies. But most of our politicians, most of the time, stop short of knowingly hurting the country. Watching developments in Congress this past week, though, one has to ask: Can that be said any longer about the leadership of the Democratic party?

I certainly under... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
I certainly understand the position of those who support the war. But most of them don't understand the position of those who oppose it. That will hurt war supporters

I clearly see the opposition to the war as a political game for Democrats. If President Bush prevails, Democrats lose...period. They don't want that to happen.

That is why it is important for those anti-war people to understand how Democrats once saw the threat of Saddam. I am always amazed at how little they know about what transpired during the 1990's.

Huh?........here I thought ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Huh?........here I thought we were responding to the denial that there never were any contacts whatsoever. by jumpin

When did I ever say that? Please show proof, or shut up.

Barney, It is good ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Barney,
It is good that Barney agreed that anyone trying to spread the meme that there is no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda have been spreading a lie. Good.
Next, can we agree that Saddam Hussein had a WMD program at least?

I honestly believe the left... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:

I honestly believe the left has been duped. One thing that made liberals go...coo coo for coco puffs was Fahrenheit 9-11.

When talking about the Iraq / Al qaeda links, this is what the audience saw and still believes. They believe it because they want to.

Fahrenheit shows Condoleezza Rice saying, "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11."


The audience laughs derisively. Here is what Rice really said on the CBS Early Show, Nov. 28, 2003:

Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It's not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York. This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they're all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East
Moore deceptively cut the Rice quote to fool the audience into thinking she was making a particular claim, even though she was pointedly not making such a claim. And since Rice spoke in November 2003, her quote had nothing to do with building up American fears before the March 2003 invasion, although Moore implies otherwise
Jumpinjoe, Thanks f... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jumpinjoe,
Thanks for all the references and the work to put them together. It doesn't take much brain for me. But it needs the teaching skill of someone like you to help the liberals along.

I said, (Jumpinjoe) ....her... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:

I said, (Jumpinjoe) ....here I thought we were responding to the denial that there never were any contacts whatsoever

BarneyG2000 then replied:

When did I ever say that? Please show proof, or shut up.

Right Here

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

Dingbat.........

Thanks for all th... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Thanks for all the references and the work to put them together. It doesn't take much brain for me. But it needs the teaching skill of someone like you to help the liberals along

Thank you....but I feel like a broken record because it's the same old lesson taught over and over.

But hey, I'm glad to share what ever info I have.

Thank God for archives in my "favorite places".

JUmpin, nice try but :<br /... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

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

Is no where close to saying:
"..there never were any contacts whatsoever" Your words not mine.

And Lovie, I never said that there were "connections".

Contacts in the 90's is not the same as connections, or operational relationships.

Bush just finished 6-party talks with NK. Does that mean that Bush has an operational relationship with a known terrorist?

The more you two write, the stupider you two sound.

Barney, Time to be ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Barney,
Time to be honest cutie. Don't try to weasel out. Now can we agree that Saddam did have a WMD program?

Bush just finished 6-party ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Bush just finished 6-party talks with NK. Does that mean that Bush has an operational relationship with a known terrorist?
-----------------------------------------------
Is this stupid or dense?

Bush just finished 6-par... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

Bush just finished 6-party talks with NK. Does that mean that Bush has an operational relationship with a known terrorist?
-----------------------------------------------
Is this stupid or dense?

It's stupid not to include the first part of Barney's sentence, thus taking it out of context:

Contacts in the 90's is not the same as connections, or operational relationships.

But then, LAI, that wouldn't allow YOU the often taken opportunity to be stupid and dense.

Barney2000 is really Barney... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Barney2000 is really Barney Fife. "Andy...."

Just want to see whether li... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Just want to see whether liberals can really understand what they are saying. Hansel didn't disappoint. I am tired of you guys making these stupid comparisons.

Are you guys saying that Saddam was having a meeting with Al Qaeda to negotiate their disarmament?

Thanks for confirming my observation that the liberal left is really in an intellectual and moral sewage.

Are you guys sayi... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Are you guys saying that Saddam was having a meeting with Al Qaeda to negotiate their disarmament

It went something like this:

OBL: Yo, Saddam...wuz up
Saddam: Not much big 'O.
OBL: Americans suck...yo
Saddam: heard dat
OBL: We are planning something big.
Saddam: Don't tell me about, I got a rep to maintain
OBL: Word...
Saddam: Peace out....


Fact is, idiot, you don't k... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

Fact is, idiot, you don't know what their meeting(s) were about, how long they were, when they happened and what the context was.

There are meetings happening all the time between allies and enemies and every combination - and not everything is evil. Sometimes the conversations are. Sometimes they're of no consequence.

The glitch with your thought process is that you ASSUME you know - without any lick of credible evidence except your right-wing heresay. Even your own republican administration has assured you that the Al Qaeda/Iraq links are of no consequence.

But you even insist THEIR wrong. You assume everything is nefarious - and that's policy based out of fear. Just like Bush likes to have people like you - wetting your pants in fear and pumping your chest.

They sure have you in their hip pocket, don't they. And I'm sure all you'll be able to respond with is your typical "liberal traitor this, liberal traitor that" and a bunch of links to laughable articles.

Fact is, idiot, you don't k... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Fact is, idiot, you don't know what their meeting(s) were about, how long they were, when they happened and what the context was.

There are meetings happening all the time between allies and enemies and every combination - and not everything is evil. Sometimes the conversations are. Sometimes they're of no consequence.
-------------------------------------------------
With all the contacts laid out by jumpinjoe, you really don't know what they might be planning?
Can you make an educated guess? Or you only know it when they openly announce it? I rest my case. Jumpinjoe, it 's all yours. I don't have the teaching skill you have. These guys are hopeless.

Is no where close... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Is no where close to saying: "..there never were any contacts whatsoever" Your words not mine

Then what the hell are you blabbering about?

Go read your post I referenced and tell me again you were not trying to debunk any contact between Al queda and Iraq pre 9-11.

If not you should have just agreed with....yep...yep...and yep.

Fact is, idiot, y... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Fact is, idiot, you don't know what their meeting(s) were about, how long they were, when they happened and what the context was

WTF?.....Iraq and Al qaeda have known contacts and the U.S. should say....nothing going on here? Move along......

Al qaeda is a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION not a country with envoys to discuss free trade and humanitarian causes.

Good Lord......

Is this really what the lefties feed you people or do you actually come up with this stuff all by yourselves?

News ItemISLAMABAD, ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

News Item
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Jan. 20 -- Faced with new charges that Pakistan is harboring Islamic insurgents, including fugitive Taliban leader Mohammad Omar, Pakistani officials this weekend denied such allegations and defended their efforts to curb cross-border insurgent attacks in Afghanistan as sincere if not totally successful.

News Item
WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 -- Senior leaders of Al Qaeda operating from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once-battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

News Item
Speaking during a 24-hour visit, Mr Bush reaffirmed a "broad and lasting strategic partnership" with Pakistan.

So Lovie and Jumpin, by your logic, since al Qaeda is operating out of Pakistan, and Pakistan is allowing it and Bush is supporting Pakistan, than bush has a connection with al Qaeda.

Your logic, not mine.

Jumpinjoe, it 's ... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Jumpinjoe, it 's all yours. I don't have the teaching skill you have. These guys are hopeless

Unfortunately, no matter what information you give some people, they are still dismissive because of their bad case of Cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation


if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know -- particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge -- they are likely to resist the new learning.


and--counter-intuitively, perhaps--if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are less likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".


Jumpinjoe, looks li... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jumpinjoe,
looks like we are making a tiny progress on Barney cutie. Let me try to help along a little more.

Barney Cutie,
Let me try give an example. FDR allied with Stalin to fight against Hitler in WWII. Why did FDR do that? In order to fight a common enemy, right? We are doing the same thing with Pakistan's Musharaf gov. There are elements in Pakistan supporting Al Qaeda ideology, a no brainer. But it is a common enemy for him and the US, right? Now, Can Saddam and Al Qaeda talk about fighting their common enemy? Can we make an educated guess of who that is? Or is it too hard a question?

So Lovie and Jump... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
So Lovie and Jumpin, by your logic, since al Qaeda is operating out of Pakistan, and Pakistan is allowing it and Bush is supporting Pakistan, than bush has a connection with al Qaeda

Your logic, not mine. ".

That is not my logic, quit making things up since you are getting spanked here. If they were meeting with government officials than you could say that.

Were the allegations that Saddam government was making contact....yes.

Is Pakistan's government making contacts.....No

Only the Pakistan Army is making contact. I not surprised you don't see the difference.

Well, never mind.....I can see...(sigh)

barney cutie, BTW,... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

barney cutie,
BTW, can we agree that Saddam did have a WMD program?

When talking about the I... (Below threshold)
Brian:

When talking about the Iraq / Al qaeda links, this is what the audience saw and still believes.
...
The audience laughs derisively. Here is what Rice really said on the CBS Early Show, Nov. 28, 2003:

And then you go on to show how Rice's quote about how there is a link between Iraq and AQ is taken out of context, when in fact the rest of her statement in context shows her claiming that there is no link between them. Thank for confirming that.

looks like we are... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
looks like we are making a tiny progress on Barney cutie. Let me try to help along a little more".

I can tell by the desperation of the "way out in left field" responses.

Wow, to equate Al qaeda in the Pakistan mountain region to contacts with the Iraq government was quite the stretch.

This is getting too easy, I may have to do something else exciting like watch paint dry rather than read the lefty zingers here. (eye roll)

Wow--no one from the lef... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Wow--no one from the left is denying the headline of this thread

Hmmm, when you think the left is vigorously denying a headline, your interpretation is "gee, it must be true if they're so worked up about it". Then when you think the left is not vigorously denying a headline, your interpretation is "gee, it must be true if they're not denying it".

You must have taken the same logic class as President "it's-good-if-the-violence-is-decreasing-and-it's-good-if-the-violence-is-increasing" Bush.

Brian is probably too dense... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Brian is probably too dense here. It is hard for me to think that Brian is that stupid. Rice was saying that we don't and probably won't have the definite proof like a memo or picture or proclamation to show that Saddam was involved in 9/11. But it doesn't mean that Saddam doesn't work with Al Qaeda under the table to mean us harm.

Jumpinjoe,
My guess is that Brian is trying to use the typical liberal tactic of changing the subject when confronted with facts.

BTW, Brian, do you agree that Saddam did have a WMD program?

And then you go on... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
And then you go on to show how Rice's quote about how there is a link between Iraq and AQ is taken out of context, when in fact the rest of her statement in context shows her claiming that there is no link between them. Thank for confirming that".

Re-read what you are referencing. Rice is not saying there were never contacts, she said...........

It's not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11".

Meaning she is not implicating Iraq in the 9-11 attack. However she is saying it is that same hatred that causes these people to fly airplanes into buildings.

You people are grasping...........

Can you make an educate... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

Can you make an educated guess? Or you only know it when they openly announce it? I rest my case.

...and it's a real paper-thin case - not that you'd know it.

Ahmadinejad recently had a meeting with the Hugo Chavez. We can assume that some of the conversation was about the U.S.
But what can we act on? What was discussed? Fact is, you don't know - and you can create whatever conversation you want in your feeble little mind as to what was said - but you still don't know. Was some of that conversation about attacking us? Maybe. Maybe not.

By your logic, we should invade both Iran and Venezuela. They are at odds with us, aren't they? Why aren't we sending military into both countries RIGHT NOW.

Maybe we should go into both countries, but we will have no credibility or support in the world without credible evidence and - since our morally corrupt President decided to fabricate his way into our current war - we've been reduced to Chicken Little.

And, believe it or not, we need some of the rest of the world when we enter a conflict - not just for diplomatic leverage, but also to alleviate the enormous cost (George's dad knew this). Iraq has sucked up so much of our military and funds that we are handicapped in the event another conflict occurs - i.e. we're less safe.

To put it simply, invading based on Six degrees of Kevin Bacon doesn't work. Invading based on a lie doesn't succeed (take a look at Gulf of Tonkin and Vietnam).

And even if it could succeed, it would need to be managed right - which it was not. Essentially, everything this administration could do wrong in Iraq they managed to do.

But, Love America's Ignorant, a simple mind like yourself will only see what the fear mongers want you to see -- that all those against the war are traitors (which, sorry to inform you, is most of the United States), all information is evidence, and everything the administration says we should do is right.

It must be so nice to stay so blissfully ignorant and so comforted from your fears - and never have to ask how things REALLY should be handled, diplomatically and militarily.

And, by the way, I hardly agree with everything the democratic party does or says. That's what's called a mind of my own.

Get one some day.

Then when you thin... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Then when you think the left is not vigorously denying a headline, your interpretation is "gee, it must be true if they're not denying it".

I would say there is enough liberals that post in these comment sections to get the gist of the party platform around here.

Plus I get saved all the time of trolling around leftie web sites because I read the disseminated talking points here.

I would visit those sites more often but they ban "out of goose-step" commentary.

Liberal Open-mindedness = Open so far their brains fall out. (slaps knee)

By your logic, we ... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
By your logic, we should invade both Iran and Venezuela. They are at odds with us, aren't they? Why aren't we sending military into both countries RIGHT NOW

What are you talking about? We were simply debunking the lefty talking point that Iraq and Al qaeda never had any contacts over the years. The Clinton administration even used that connection to bomb the aspirin factory in Sudan.

Some of you people need to just post the words...DUH...then move along...it makes the same amount of sense.

Just anticipating the moron... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

Just anticipating the moronic mincing of words here, in regards to Vietnam and, for that matter, Iraq, there were far more reasons these wars went south other than just the lies that got us into them.

Incompetency is a good part of it. Internal civil wars another.

But, of course, according the robots on this site, Vietnam became a failure not because of the management or the politics, but was instead defeated by the hippies -- and Iraq will be defeated by...hmmm. what? The majority of Americans? Damn those traitors.

Barney & HanselLov... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Barney & Hansel

LoveAmerika Enemagrunt is a stupid P. O. right-wing S. from Viet Nam who apparerntly was related to Diem and is permanently embittered over the outcome of that war and is now vying to be a charter member of the ancient John Birch Society.

Anyone who does not begin from the starting gate that Dems and Libs betrayed the Viet Namese is hopelessly lost according to him/her.

LA Enemeagrunt is dismayed that all of America does not goosestep in the fashion to which he is accustomed. He thinks he is a real AmeriKan.

But, of course, ac... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
But, of course, according the robots on this site, Vietnam became a failure not because of the management or the politics, but was instead defeated by the hippies -- and Iraq will be defeated by...hmmm. what? The majority of Americans? Damn those traitors

I would say the majority of electorate does not hear more news that sound bites.

That explains why Democrats are able to pretend that once upon a time they never talked tough about Iraq.

And yes...I hate hippies!!!

However she is saying it... (Below threshold)
Brian:

However she is saying it is that same hatred that causes these people to fly airplanes into buildings.

And from Rice:

And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East

So in other words, from both of you, the link between Iraq and AQ is that they're both in the Middle East, and that they both contain hateful people. And that, according to Rice, is the extent of the link.

You people are grasping...........

Puke 's post is contentless... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Puke 's post is contentless. So it is not worth a response since it is typical liberal sewage in any case.

For you Hansen, Al Qaeda blew up 3000 American on 9/11. Saddam was under UN surveillance for years and had violated 15 UN resolution. Even before 9/11, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. After 9/11 with all the evidence of their connection, we shouldn't do anything? What 's wrong with you guys?

When did you guys condemn people like Jane Fonda and Kerry for their traitorous acts? When did you turn out to demonstrate against the dictators of the world when they were here? You are not anti-war. You are anti-American waging war against the forces of evil in this world.

Now you guys are hiding behind the public opinion. Here is what so despicable about the modern liberals/democrats. FDR mobilized American public to fight against the fascists. The Reps didn't agree much with him at all, but they had enough honor not to hurt the country in order to win an election. What are the modern liberals doing? They are trying to influence American public to derail the effort to fight the modern fascists. No matter how you spin, this is shameful and despicable. You are trying to influence the public on behalf of the evil forces of our time (communism and now terrorism).

You guys are not even honest enough to admit the link between Saddam and Al Qadea. Not honest enough to admit that Saddam did have a WMD program. The liberal left is really in an intellectual and moral sewage.

Brian, This is from... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Brian,
This is from Barney 's source. But you are too dishonest to make an arg here. You are only interested in spinning. That is to be expected of you Brian.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/004/354tdeij.asp

Yes, There Is a Connection
The 9/11 Commission confirms Iraq-al Qaeda ties.
by Daniel McKivergan
07/22/2004 5:45:00 PM


With the release of the September 11 Commission report, some media outlets may ignore or mischaracterize the fact that the report offers more confirmation of Iraq-al Qaeda ties. It is especially noteworthy, however, that the previous staff report's finding of no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda has been significantly modified. While the commission found no evidence of a "collaborative operational relationship" for "carrying out attacks against the United States," they did find that the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda to be more extensive than many critics of the administration have been willing to admit. And, as the CIA's Counterterrorism Center previously remarked: "any indication of a relationship between these two hostile elements could carry great dangers to the United States."

Brian, Do you agree... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Brian,
Do you agree that Saddam did have a WMD program? Is it too hard a question? Just checking.

So in other words,... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
So in other words, from both of you, the link between Iraq and AQ is that they're both in the Middle East, and that they both contain hateful people. And that, according to Rice, is the extent of the link

Brian, let me give you some examples of threats from Saddam so you can grasp the connection:

1/5/1999 "Oh sons of Arabs and the Arab Gulf, rebel against the foreigner...Take revenge for your dignity, holy places, security, interests and exalted values." Saddam Hussein, January 5, 1999


2/15/1991 "Every Iraqi child, woman, and old man knows how to take revenge...They will avenge the pure blood that has been shed no matter how long it takes. Baghdad Domestic Service, February 15, 1991 (State-controlled)

9/29/1994 "Does [America] realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?" Saddam Hussein, September 29, 1994
10/6/94 "[O]ur striking arm will reach [America, Britain and Saudi Arabia] before they know what hit them."-Saddam Hussein
10/12/1994 "One chemical weapon fired in a moment of despair could cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands." Al-Quds al-Arabi, October 12, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)
7/21/1998 Iraqi media once again reiterates its 5/1/98 declaration and warns of "dire consequences" if sanctions were not lifted immediately.
1/8/1999 Three days after Saddam Hussein's speech in which he appealed to Islamists to rise up in Jihad, Osama Bin Laden issues (another) call for Jihad against the Americans and their allies-specifically citing the attacks on Iraq as a reason for the Jihad.
2/16/1999 "Whoever continues to be involved in a despicable aggressive war against the people of Iraq as a subservient party must realize that this aggressive act has a dear price." Saddam Hussein, February 16, 1999
2/27/1999 "What is required now is to deal strong blows to U.S. and British interests. These blows should be strong enough to make them feel that their interests are indeed threatened not only by words but also in deeds." Al-Qadisiyah, February 27, 1999 (State-controlled newspaper)

Are you grasping yet? Saddam and Al qaeda both wanted revenge on the infidels, meaning US as in United States.

What are the modern libe... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

What are the modern liberals doing? They are trying to influence American public to derail the effort to fight the modern fascists. You are trying to influence the public on behalf of the evil forces of our time (communism and now terrorism).

Are you deranged? Do you even realize the kind of delusional fear-based craziness you spout, pal? Nobody's suggesting we don't fight our enemies - there's enough of them - but now you and your other friend, Jumpin, are suggesting that the American majority are dummies and so easily influenced.

Quite the opposite. Most people in this country are smart, no matter what part of it they live in. And they understand when they're being lied to. It's the scared little children on this website - and the small minority you now make up - that don't understand that the world isn't so black and white. It's you who've been influenced by a man and his administration that most people have long since understood is a dishonest salesman.

And this isn't the same type of war WWII was. It's much more complex. It's not so B/W. Not every muslim in the world is our enemy and not every enemy needs to be dealt with the same way.

And you don't see any of this because you're obviously so fearful you're almost parallyzed ("They are trying to influence American public to derail the effort to fight the modern fascists.")

Stop being a little sissy boy. When you put away your fear you see what's really happening in this world - and what isn't. And, by the way, I was down in the Battery when we were attacked. I saw it first hand. I know what a terrorist attack looks like - and if anyone has a right to know fear, it's someone like a New Yorker on that day - and if most of us here can sift through the bull%&# we're told by this government, anyone should (and most of the country does) Where were you on that day?

That explains why Democr... (Below threshold)
Brian:

That explains why Democrats are able to pretend that once upon a time they never talked tough about Iraq.

This is the problem with the right. You don't understand "right and wrong". You think there's only "right and hypocritical" or "right and flip-flopping". That's why you stay the course even in the face of obvious failure; you just can't admit you were wrong and fix what you broke, even when the rest of the country has already figure dit out.

No one's "pretending" they didn't talk tough about Iraq four freakin' years ago. Edwards admitted he was wrong, and Hillary refuses to apologize (thus angering the far left). What they're saying is, it turns out it was the wrong action, and now that they know it was wrong it's time to do something to fix it.

But the right just can't admit it was wrong because they take it personally. The analogy is, as usual, that "the cover up is worse". That is, we'd all be in a better position today if Bush two years ago said, "the intelligence was faulty, and here are the steps I'm going to take to get us out of a place we shouldn't be in". Instead, he spent that time twisting the intelligence to find weak threads of support for what had already been shown to not be true.

Here's conservative columnist David Brooks:

Far be it from me to get in the middle of a liberal purge, but would anybody mind if I pointed out that the calls for Hillary Clinton to apologize for her support of the Iraq war are almost entirely bogus?


I mean, have the people calling for her apology actually read the speeches she delivered before the war? Have they read her remarks during the war resolution debate, when she specifically rejected a pre-emptive, unilateral attack on Saddam? Did they read the passages in which she called for a longer U.N. inspections regime and declared, "I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial"?

And here's John McCain:

"We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement -- that's the kindest word I can give you -- of Donald Rumsfeld, of this war," the Arizona senator said.


"The price is very, very heavy and I regret it enormously."


"I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history," McCain said to applause.


Conservatives all over the country are dropping their support of Bush in favor of supporting America. Quit your bellyaching and be one of them.

Oh Lovie, why don't you jus... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Oh Lovie, why don't you just go back to LUYENCHUONG and have a good time.

Barney & Barnie, Do... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Barney & Barnie,
Do you guys agree that Saddam did have a WMD program? Is that such a hard question?

Hansel,
No matter how you spin, the fact remains that you are doing their best to derail the fight against the modern fascists. The dem party is doing exactly what the terrorists expect them would do. Just look in the mirror.

Brian, let me give you s... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian, let me give you some examples of threats from Saddam so you can grasp the connection:

All I see is some bad guy who we completely clobbered talking tough and wagging his finger at us, while all the while we have him completely boxed in and impotent militarily and with UN inspectors. Which is more than could have been said about all the other bad guys talking tough and wagging their fingers at us.

Good quotes. No mention of AQ. Thanks for clarifying the lack of connection (though you were really just trying to change the subject).

Are you grasping yet? Sa... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Are you grasping yet? Saddam and Al qaeda both wanted revenge on the infidels, meaning US as in United States.

Oh, I forgot to say...

LOL!!!!

That's your connection?! So when AQ attacks us, we should respond by finding some other group who also doesn't like us, and attacking them instead?! Gooooood logic. Tell you what... if there's another AQ attack, let's respond by invading North Korea! Or Syria! Or Lebanon!

That's your connection?! So... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

That's your connection?! So when AQ attacks us, we should respond by finding some other group who also doesn't like us, and attacking them instead?! Gooooood logic. Tell you what... if there's another AQ attack, let's respond by invading North Korea! Or Syria! Or Lebanon!
-----------------------------------------------
Brian,
Are you stupid or dense again? Japan attacked us, why did we wage war against Germany?

Brian, Did Saddam h... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Brian,
Did Saddam have a WMD program? Why are you trying to avoid a direct question? What is the problem? Can you be honest for once?

For anyone who just happ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

For anyone who just happens by this site who is in a political fog yet has a deep seated love of Country, I'll save ya some time. The Democrat Party is completely corrupt , incompetant and a Perpetual Fraud. The Democrat Media repeats lies and false accustions , divides the Country and further pushes their fraud onto the people to the point they gain the Majority in both Houses and now they claim to have been given the authority to _________________, Nov 7 2006. They fill in the blank with every new treasonous act and scheme to undermine our President ina time of War.

Now you'll read the desparate attempts by juvenille delinquents like Barney , hansel, hugh , lee, Civil Behavior and more try and defend their Masters and they always fail miserably. So don't waist your time unless you have time to kill. What they will never be able to do is prevent you from seeing and hearing their Masters in action for yourself and making your own conclusions. Demorats are liars , criminals and phony , thus is born the perpetual fraud.

Don't take my word for it , go and discover it for yourself as I did and I've no doubt you'll be shocked , disgusted , outraged or maybe not surprised. The more you search for the facts the more the criminal frauds are exposed. Isn't that right boy and girls?

Lovie, I will answer your q... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Lovie, I will answer your question as long as you tell us you were wrong when when you said this:

BTW, the war has been enormously successful and "easy" ...
Posted by LoveAmerica Immigrant | June 19, 2006 10:48 AM |

All I see is some... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
All I see is some bad guy who we completely clobbered talking tough and wagging his finger at us, while all the while we have him completely boxed in and impotent militarily and with UN inspectors. Which is more than could have been said about all the other bad guys talking tough and wagging their fingers at us

Brian....I didn't realize how slow you were. It was abundantly clear that Rice was making the connection of threats directed at the United States. Individual threats from Iraq and Al qaeda.

What's really funny is if everything in the above block quote were true then why did Democrats say this:

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

You are such dupes and still using the same old lies.

If Saddam was boxed in, these Democrats would never had said what they did.

Someone, somewhere condescendingly patted you on the head and told you were smart. But am here to tell you they were just trying to be kind. You should have never taken it literally.

All the quotes above were people just lying then or if they believed it, then they are lying now. Can't have it both ways.....

Which means they are traitors and are undermining the war for political purposes and you and your ilk are along for the goose-step parade.

Good Day...last post on this thread for me....

How the PERPEETUAL FRAUD... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

How the PERPEETUAL FRAUD works:

Democrat political hack Katie Couric reports on another "BS" Poll.

53% block all funding for additional troops and for the war entirely

Facts:

8% Block all funding for war

45% block funding for more troops

42% Allow all funding for war

This is how the Democrat Party and their Media outright lie to the American People and deceive their way back into POWER.
Kill the democrats with the facts.

"Are you stupid or d... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:


"Are you stupid or dense again? Japan attacked us, why did we wage war against Germany? " by lovie

Another brilliant moment from Lovie. Hitler declared war on us.

I see you command of history is as strong as your command of modern topics.

My how quiet it is , I ca... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

My how quiet it is , I can hear a democrat thinking up their next lie.

Brian....I didn't realiz... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian....I didn't realize how slow you were. It was abundantly clear that Rice was making the connection of threats directed at the United States. Individual threats from Iraq and Al qaeda.

I may be slow, but at least I can make a cogent point. You, instead, keep making my point for me. As I said, because AQ threatens us, and NoKo threatens us, then in response to an AQ attack we should invade NoKo. That's your twisted logic, which you've stated once again.

All the quotes above were people just lying then or if they believed it, then they are lying now. Can't have it both ways.....

Again, making my point for me. You can't accept people admitting they were took the wrong steps in the past and are trying to fix things. For you, it's not "right or wrong", it's "right or lying!"

Posted by: BarneyG2000 a... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Posted by: BarneyG2000 at February 19, 2007 08:00 PM
...
My how quiet it is , I can hear a democrat thinking up their next lie.

Posted by: Rob LA Ca. at February 19, 2007 08:03 PM

Wow, three whole minutes without someone to hurl a fact-free insult at. I know you can come up with lies much faster than that, but please just keep pacing in your padded cell and try to be patient.

Since it appears that Lovie... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Since it appears that Lovie is too busy cruising the Vietnamese "video site" I indicated above (explain why your email address is registered at the site?) and he can't admit to his blindness to the "easy going" of the war, I will answer his question by referring to the commission enacted by the President, so if you disagree, please take it up with shrub.

http://www.wmd.gov/report/report.html#chapter1

Specifically, the NIE assessed that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program and could assemble a device by the end of the decade; that Iraq had biological weapons and mobile facilities for producing biological warfare (BW) agent; that Iraq had both renewed production of chemical weapons, and probably had chemical weapons stockpiles of up to 500 metric tons; and that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) probably intended to deliver BW agent.

These assessments were all wrong.

This became clear as U.S. forces searched without success for the WMD that the Intelligence Community had predicted.

Extensive post-war investigations were carried out by the Iraq Survey Group (ISG). The ISG found no evidence that Iraq had tried to reconstitute its capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991; no evidence of BW agent stockpiles or of mobile biological weapons production facilities; and no substantial chemical warfare (CW) stockpiles or credible indications that Baghdad had resumed production of CW after 1991.

Just about the only thing that the Intelligence Community got right was its pre-war conclusion that Iraq had deployed missiles with ranges exceeding United Nations limitations.

Barney, Do you care... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Barney,
Do you care to give us a link to my post? Can you be honest enough to do that?
Let me be fair to you even though I know that you are trying to divert attention from a lie being caught.

Michael Scheuer, ex CIA age... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Michael Scheuer, ex CIA agent, said tonight that the real threat to the US comes from AQ min Afghanistan, and now Pakistan.

The Chimp took his eyes off the prize in 2003 to go after Saddam. Meanwhile, Scheuer sees the singular threat to America w/ AQ in Afghanistan & Pakistan and spoke of the eventuality of a nuclear device detonated here because the US did not deal w/ AQ where it is lodged.

So you loonies, like LaveAmeriKa Enemagrunt and jumpinjoe who are lovers of military campaigns and the dwarf-in-chief that you helped elect and constantly cheer for, get ready for the big one because this Republic Party and its preachers of war and fear missed the big one.

Hey Barney , BJ Clinton ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Hey Barney , BJ Clinton is a convicted Felon having commited Perjury. Do I need evidence to prove it?


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

"one of the Bush administration's main justifications"........."Main Justifications"

How many "Water Mains" , "Gas Mains" and main power curcuit breakers in the average house?

Just one. There was no "ONE MAIN JUSTIFICATION" to go into IRAQ like you losers keep crying about. It's nothing more than democrats lying distorting and distracting. When was the last time a democrat answered a simple yes or no question say on Fox News? I've never seen one yet their mouths did not stop moving for 5 minutes straight. Takes a while to get out their "TALKING POINTS".

"Are you stupid or dense ag... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

"Are you stupid or dense again? Japan attacked us, why did we wage war against Germany? " by lovie

Another brilliant moment from Lovie. Hitler declared war on us.
-------------------------------------------------
Saddam was at war with us. And he was to live under the ceasefire agreement after 1991. Far more justification. So using the same standard,
now since Iran is "decalring war" on the US, we should wage war against them now? So we should be ready for a war against Iran? Besides there is also a link between Iran and Al Qaeda.

http://www.nysun.com/article/32594
Iran Declares War

Who keeps the PERPETUAL F... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Who keeps the PERPETUAL FRAUD alive?

Losers like aRepukelican,

"The Chimp took his eyes off the prize in 2003 to go after Saddam."

This is one of many democrat lies better known as talking points. This one can easily make the top ten if not at least the top 25. Yes there is alot of them.

What makes this one a personal favorite for dunces like Puke is that, not only just being another lie to smear President Bush , they actually think it will diminish the complete incompetance of the BJ Clinton Administration and his multiple documented failures to get Bin Laden even when handed to him.

9/11 is just one of many ways we are paying for 8 years of Clinton. Now we can look forward to hearing and seeing for the rest of our living years , the Criminal Clinton Ass worshippers tell their nonstop lies.

Sandy Berger Destroying documents that pertained to 9/11 just days prior to having to testify in front of the 9/11 Commision , doesn't that just speak volumes about the CRIMINAL DEMOCRAT PARTY OF PERPETUAL FRAUD?

I guess Lovie wants to talk... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I guess Lovie wants to talk about anything other then:
-The war is easy (comment by lovie)
-The Presidents own commission said there were no WMD (reputing lovies' claims)
-His favorite website (me sooo horny, lovam125)

Rob,Why can't you ... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

Rob,

Why can't you admit the republican lies better known as talking points. This one can easily make the top ten if not at least the top 25. Yes there is alot of them.

9/11 is just one of many ways we are paying for 4 years of HW Bush. Now we can look forward to hearing and seeing for the rest of our living years, the Criminal Bush Ass worshippers tell their nonstop lies.

George HW Bush left permanent bases in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War and Bin Laden declared war on us because the infidels occupied their sacred land. Why can't you admit your lies! It is George HW Bush who is responsible for all the ills that we face today. And Ronald Reagan! He left Afghanistan without finishing the job.

Maybe it was Jimmy Carter? Or Ford? Or Nixon? Maybe Herbert Hoover. Personally, I will blame the last 6 years of incompetence on President James Tyler. He's the one REALLY responsible.

Hey Rob. The only party of perpetual fraud is the one-man party in your pants that you host every night. Get a life.

You can blame Bill Clinton for whatever you want. Why not blame him for your pathetic ignorance.

And by the way, Rob, if you... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

And by the way, Rob, if you're too dense to understand my sarcastic post, it simply means that George W. Bush has been President for the past 6 years. That is an inescapable fact.

And the last 6 years have been an unmitigated failure of leadership.

So go ahead and blame every other President, particularly Clinton. It absolves you of dealing with reality. Either way, you'll always be wrong.

Poor miserable Hansel, I ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Poor miserable Hansel, I believe you believe that.

Hansel wrote:

"Why can't you admit your lies!"

I've lied? can anyone please tell me what I have lied about? "Lies" Oh so there is more than one , ok that should make it easier to at the very least find one thing that I have lied about.

"And the last 6 years have been an unmitigated failure of leadership."

Your entitled to your opinion like every asshole but not your own facts.

The last 6 years have been an unmitigated failure of the democrat party to live in reality , admit they tried and failed to steal the election in 2000 and have been crying like losers and made treason their business ever since.

"Why not blame him for your pathetic ignorance."

Only if you really really want me to and say pretty please with sugar on top.

Can you smell the ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:


Can you smell the BULLSHIT?

Hansel wrote:

"Quite the opposite. Most people in this country are smart, no matter what part of it they live in. And they understand when they're being lied to. It's the scared little children on this website - and the small minority you now make up - that don't understand that the world isn't so black and white. It's you who've been influenced by a man and his administration that most people have long since understood is a dishonest salesman."

then she ends in typical fashion with ......(cough...moral athority)

"And, by the way, I was down in the Battery when we were attacked. I saw it first hand. I know what a terrorist attack looks like - and if anyone has a right to know fear, it's someone like a New Yorker on that day - and if most of us here can sift through the bull%&# we're told by this government, anyone should (and most of the country does) Where were you on that day?"

You know , I'll bet money hansel plucked the first part from her home sight some years ago and made a pledge to her beloved BJ Clinton that she wasn't going to take it lying down anymore and let them talk that way about him .She now enjoys doggy style as she does her darndest to pollish those turds, deny the facts , ignore reality and not only does she attempt to Clintonize President Bush , she now thinks she can Clintonize reality. Poof! you are what I say...... Don't hog it pass it ..sheesh!

The second part she states :

"I saw it first hand" (9/11) ,as a New Yorker she knows what a terrorist attack looks like and that gives her the right to know fear better than most. Most people are smart and know when they are being lied to so on and so forth.

One has to wonder what kind of drugs she was on when she voted for Hilary Rotten Clinton from Arkansas to be her Senator in New York?

That's all folks buenas noches , been real.

One has to wonder what k... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

One has to wonder what kind of drugs she was on when she voted for Hilary Rotten Clinton from Arkansas to be her Senator in New York?

Everything always comes back to things others don't say, huh, Rob? If you had to debate real issues and not simply spout your ignorant bile, flaunt your stereotypical mindset and run through the same tired crap you do every single post, your head would explode.

Didn't vote for Hilary. Surprising? Not to you, I assume, since you're such a "observer of people."

I could go on, or try to have a real discussion with you, but there is no such thing in your book. Throw out your slogans, explain how smart you are since you've only "discovered" politics and the world two years ago (most of us here have respect for our institution and voting rights and have for a long time - and don't need to be prodded into understanding it late in life because we have "a full-time girlfriend and a job" - so do the rest of us, for that matter) and let those of us who don't display our ignorance and ugliness to the rest of the world handle the serious matters.

Run along to the sandbox. You being laughed out of the conversation here anyway.

"and let those of us who d... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"and let those of us who don't display our ignorance and ugliness to the rest of the world handle the serious matters."

Your hilarious , all you di "IS" come here and display your ignorance and ugliness.

"handle the serious matters."

You have absolutely no part in the handling of any serious matters. As a matter of fact , you contribute to the problem.

"most of us here have respect for our institution and voting rights and have for a long time"

Who the hell is "us here" ?

I've no doubt you belong to an institution.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy