Team Bush Screws Up AGAIN!

[retiredman]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/08/AR2007100801817.html?hpid=topnews

It is definitely time to take the keys away from clowns driving the bus.

I wonder if the righties on here will be as hard on the Bushies for this screw up as they were on the NYT when they printed the story about financial tracking of terror momey?

my guess: not exactly:lol:

[diuretic]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/08/AR2007100801817.html?hpid=topnews

It is definitely time to take the keys away from clowns driving the bus.

I wonder if the righties on here will be as hard on the Bushies for this screw up as they were on the NYT when they printed the story about financial tracking of terror momey?

my guess: not exactly:lol:

Of course not. The minimisers and obfuscators will be along shortly, they have to wait for the scripts first.

What a cock-up.

[hjmick]

They ought to find the source of the leak and string him up by the nut sack.

[Monkeybone]

seems like a lack of comminication by some Re-Re's.

"wait wait wait....we weren't supposed to transcrive that and give it to the news?....shit..."

[Nukeman]

ANYONE who leaks sensitive information should be shot for treason as well as the media outlets that put it out there for everyone to see because hey lets face it "we got to be the ones to scoop a story dont we".

Any government official who leaks this type of information should be forced to resign.


Before you start on the Valerie Plame nonsense remember her husband always introduced her as his spy and it was a known secret to the media that she was a spy...

[diuretic]

ANYONE who leaks sensitive information should be shot for treason as well as the media outlets that put it out there for everyone to see because hey lets face it "we got to be the ones to scoop a story dont we".

Any government official who leaks this type of information should be forced to resign.


Before you start on the Valerie Plame nonsense remember her husband always introduced her as his spy and it was a known secret to the media that she was a spy...

The media should be controlled?

[avatar4321]

They ought to find the source of the leak and string him up by the nut sack.

I agree.

[Monkeybone]

The media should be controlled?

don't see that anywhere in Nuke's post. i just took it as that they should also be held responsible

[manu1959]

this is actually pretty cool....the bush administration since 911 had reformed the intelligence community and actually penetrated the terrorist network in less than 2 years.....unfortunately they will have to do it again.....unless.....they have multiple networks....which i am sure they do....maybe they gave this one up to burrow deeper with another one....

i love spy vs spy....

[darin]

It's a sign of stupidity to fault "Bush" and not the "Leak".

[retiredman]

It's a sign of stupidity to fault "Bush" and not the "Leak".

which is why the thread title mentions Team Bush instead of just Bush.

but I am curious...where DOES the buck stop in this pissant little cowboy's administration? :laugh2:

[darin]

which is why the thread title mentions Team Bush instead of just Bush.

but I am curious...where DOES the buck stop in this pissant little cowboy's administration? :laugh2:


But it's still stupid to say 'bush administration' for EVERYTHING ANY Federal Employee happens to do which is bad. It's silly and ignorant. I wonder if silly and ignorant stories turn-on silly and ignorant people?

[retiredman]

But it's still stupid to say 'bush administration' for EVERYTHING ANY Federal Employee happens to do which is bad.


ANY federal employee???? :laugh2: did you miss this part of the story:

"it notified the Bush administration of its secret acquisition. It gave two senior officials access on the condition that the officials not reveal they had it until the al-Qaeda release. "

[darin]

ANY federal employee???? :laugh2: did you miss this part of the story:

"it notified the Bush administration of its secret acquisition. It gave two senior officials access on the condition that the officials not reveal they had it until the al-Qaeda release. "

Right. What is "The Bush Administration" and what are "Senior Officials"? Lapdogs like you start humping the sofa without ANY requirement for details.

Are "Senior Officials" 75 year old security guards for the President's Gardening equipment? You don't care. You ONLY care about feeding your hatred of somebody (GWB) who generally stands for morals and the right-thing-to-do and possesses a strength of character you have only READ about.

[Dilloduck]

this is actually pretty cool....the bush administration since 911 had reformed the intelligence community and actually penetrated the terrorist network in less than 2 years.....unfortunately they will have to do it again.....unless.....they have multiple networks....which i am sure they do....maybe they gave this one up to burrow deeper with another one....

i love spy vs spy....

me too----no telling what's gonig on when it comes to intelligence and counter intelligence. IF al qaeda shut down their whole network then I guess they got some work to do to get it all set back up again.

[darin]

me too----no telling what's gonig on when it comes to intelligence and counter intelligence. IF al qaeda shut down their whole network then I guess they got some work to do to get it all set back up again.

Liberals tend to lack the strategic foresight or intellectual fortitude to think like this. They get horny when something SEEMS to go badly, because they are full of HATE for their President and their Nation. They tend to serve their self-interests.

[retiredman]

Right. What is "The Bush Administration" and what are "Senior Officials"? Lapdogs like you start humping the sofa without ANY requirement for details.

Are "Senior Officials" 75 year old security guards for the President's Gardening equipment? You don't care. You ONLY care about feeding your hatred of somebody (GWB) who generally stands for morals and the right-thing-to-do and possesses a strength of character you have only READ about.

"A small private intelligence company that monitors Islamic terrorist groups obtained a new Osama bin Laden video ahead of its official release last month, and around 10 a.m. on Sept. 7, it notified the Bush administration of its secret acquisition. It gave two senior officials access on the condition that the officials not reveal they had it until the al-Qaeda release."

so you think this firm is going to relase the video tape to security guards for the presiden't gardening equipment? :laugh2:

"The precise source of the leak remains unknown. Government officials declined to be interviewed about the circumstances on the record, but they did not challenge Katz's version of events"

keep spinning.... keep apologizing for your president's inept administration. You do it so well!

[Dilloduck]

"A small private intelligence company that monitors Islamic terrorist groups obtained a new Osama bin Laden video ahead of its official release last month, and around 10 a.m. on Sept. 7, it notified the Bush administration of its secret acquisition. It gave two senior officials access on the condition that the officials not reveal they had it until the al-Qaeda release."

so you think this firm is going to relase the video tape to security guards for the presiden't gardening equipment? :laugh2:

"The precise source of the leak remains unknown. Government officials declined to be interviewed about the circumstances on the record, but they did not challenge Katz's version of events"

keep spinning.... keep apologizing for your president's inept administration. You do it so well!

naturally--and you keep spinning as a Bush screw up. What else is new?

[darin]

"A small private intelligence company that monitors Islamic terrorist groups obtained a new Osama bin Laden video ahead of its official release last month, and around 10 a.m. on Sept. 7, it notified the Bush administration of its secret acquisition. It gave two senior officials access on the condition that the officials not reveal they had it until the al-Qaeda release."

so you think this firm is going to relase the video tape to security guards for the presiden't gardening equipment? :laugh2:

"The precise source of the leak remains unknown. Government officials declined to be interviewed about the circumstances on the record, but they did not challenge Katz's version of events"

keep spinning.... keep apologizing for your president's inept administration. You do it so well!


Absolutely. You have NO Idea who the 'senior officials' are. You have NO idea in what capacity they served. You are spinning and Lying to make it seem as though the President had something to do w/ this. You are a fool, MFM.

[retiredman]

Absolutely. You have NO Idea who the 'senior officials' are. You have NO idea in what capacity they served. You are spinning and Lying to make it seem as though the President had something to do w/ this. You are a fool, MFM.

I have NEVER suggested that Bush had anything to to with this whatsoever....beyond surrounding his own incompetent ass with equally incompetent sycophants like THESE two guys.

do you even know what the word LIE means? What LIE have I told here? You need to learn to use language with precision or keep your piehole shut.

and get real...if the security company had released the tape to two aging security guards, do you think that the administration would NOT have thrown the ball right back in THEIR court?:laugh2:

[darin]

I have NEVER suggested that Bush had anything to to with this whatsoever....beyond surrounding his own incompetent ass with equally incompetent sycophants like THESE two guys.

do you even know what the word LIE means? What LIE have I told here? You need to learn to use language with precision or keep your piehole shut.

and get real...if the security company had released the tape to two aging security guards, do you think that the administration would NOT have thrown the ball right back in THEIR court?:laugh2:

Liar. You're calling for BUSH to be held accountable.


It is definitely time to take the keys away from clowns driving the bus.

I wonder if the righties on here will be as hard on the Bushies for this screw up

That right there. You are saying BUSH should be held accountable in your VERY first post.

Yet now you admit Bush had NOTHING to do with this. So...You want Bush to be accountable for something he had nothing to do with?

[Sir Evil]

Rita Katz was born in Iraq to begin with so to make this out as if the administration dropped the ball big time is a joke. Is her company a valuable servie? I'm certain of it but if you truly believe that the government is dependant on a private orginization like this, and not knee deep in thier own investigations, well........

[red states rule]

I have NEVER suggested that Bush had anything to to with this whatsoever....beyond surrounding his own incompetent ass with equally incompetent sycophants like THESE two guys.

do you even know what the word LIE means? What LIE have I told here? You need to learn to use language with precision or keep your piehole shut.

and get real...if the security company had released the tape to two aging security guards, do you think that the administration would NOT have thrown the ball right back in THEIR court?:laugh2:

This from the guy who claims he does not hope you bad news and failure

[retiredman]

Liar. You're calling for BUSH to be held accountable.



That right there. You are saying BUSH should be held accountable in your VERY first post.

Yet now you admit Bush had NOTHING to do with this. So...You want Bush to be accountable for something he had nothing to do with?

Do you understand what responsibility and accountability have to do with positions of command authority?

Do you understand what the little sign on Harry Truman's desk that said "The Buck Stops Here" actually meant?

Bush is accountable only because he put this administration in place. Just like the commanding officer who is sound asleep at 0200 when his officer of the deck runs his ship aground in responsible for the grounding, Bush is similarly accountable for the actions of the administration he entrusted to act in HIS stead.

[darin]

Do you understand what responsibility and accountability have to do with positions of command authority?

Do you understand what the little sign on Harry Truman's desk that said "The Buck Stops Here" actually meant?

Bush is accountable only because he put this administration in place. Just like the commanding officer who is sound asleep at 0200 when his officer of the deck runs his ship aground in responsible for the grounding, Bush is similarly accountable for the actions of the administration he entrusted to act in HIS stead.

You're showing stupidity.

[red states rule]

Do you understand what responsibility and accountability have to do with positions of command authority?

Do you understand what the little sign on Harry Truman's desk that said "The Buck Stops Here" actually meant?

Bush is accountable only because he put this administration in place. Just like the commanding officer who is sound asleep at 0200 when his officer of the deck runs his ship aground in responsible for the grounding, Bush is similarly accountable for the actions of the administration he entrusted to act in HIS stead.

I believe you are suffering from Bird Brain Flu

[retiredman]

You're showing stupidity.


whoa! now THAT is one insightful, content rich, response from the peanut gallery. Is that really all you got left?

now...it would seem to me that you "replied for ONE purpose - to take a pot-shot at me."
why does that get me banned but nothing happens to you?:laugh2:

immature and petulant little boy.... and an admin to boot. A dangerous combination!

[red states rule]

whoa! now THAT is one insightful, content rich, response from the peanut gallery. Is that really all you got left?

now...it would seem to me that you "replied for ONE purpose - to take a pot-shot at me."
why does that get me banned but nothing happens to you?:laugh2:

immature and petulant little boy.... and an admin to boot. A dangerous combination!

YOU are whining about pot shots?

[retiredman]

wow. the dynamic duo of dmp and rsr are just pouring on the detailed, insightful rebuttals here this afternoon!:laugh2:


YOU are whining about pot shots?

the section in quotations and italics is of special relevance to the "petulant one":laugh2:



I believe you are suffering from Bird Brain Flu

so...are you suggesting that Bush bears absolutely ZERO responsibility for the actions taken by senior members of his own administration? Is that really your contention?

[red states rule]

wow. the dynamic duo of dmp and rsr are just pouring on the detailed, insightful rebuttals here this afternoon!:laugh2:

then you must be the Joker

[retiredman]

then you must be the Joker


we are trying to have a discussion about the impact of this security leak. Do you want to join in the discussion, or are you only capable of getting your nose brown on Bush's backside or stupid inane oneliners?

[Sir Evil]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fL-L6jp1Kwg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fL-L6jp1Kwg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

So this is the source that was leaked, a small corporation formed in 2000 or so, and the administration should be hung because someone leaked it ahead of time?
Yeah that was pretty shitty but again if they are far from being dependent on internet surveillance networks.

molehill = mountain = :lame2:

[red states rule]

we are trying to have a discussion about the impact of this security leak. Do you want to join in the discussion, or are you only capable of getting your nose brown on Bush's backside or stupid inane oneliners?

Ah is Wally's feeling hurt? If this is a discussion why the hell are you here?

[retiredman]

do you think that Bush bears any command responsibility for the security leak on the part of two of his senior administation officials?

or is it only a big deal when the NYT prints it?

and why in the world would you presume that my FEELINGS would be hurt?

You ascribe all of these emotional responses when someone whips you with words. In actuality, it is done completely dispassionately.

[Sir Evil]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071009/pl_afp/usattacksintelligenceleak

[red states rule]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071009/pl_afp/usattacksintelligenceleak

It was also in Wally's link

Being the Washington Compost it was way down in the article

[darin]

wow. the dynamic duo of dmp and rsr are just pouring on the detailed, insightful rebuttals here this afternoon!:laugh2:



I find it humorous. I've shown you in a lie here in this thread. SEVERAL folk here in this thread have shown in clear and convincing fashion why you are screwed up, AND intellectually dishonest in your calling for GWB's head, and yet you continue your stomping and whining and further your tantrum against reason and common sense.


do you think that Bush bears any command responsibility for the security leak on the part of two of his senior administation officials?

First off, I have already addressed your comments about "Senior Officials." You don't know WHO they are or in what capacity they served, OR what they were even told. You've got a mental boner because you get your rocks off linking Bush to EVERYTHING bad done by ANYBODY in government.


Admin Note: MFM - you'll be permanently removed from this thread if you don't control your rapid-fire post-whoring replies. Use the "EDIT" button if you want to add to a thought.

[red states rule]

I find it humorous. I've shown you in a lie here in this thread. SEVERAL folk here in this thread have shown in clear and convincing fashion why you are screwed up, AND intellectually dishonest in your calling for GWB's head, and yet you continue your stomping and whining and further your tantrum against reason and common sense.

Isn't that his normal modus operandi?

[Sir Evil]

It was also in Wally's link

Being the Washington Compost it was way down in the article

actually his post was a typical knee jerk reaction to try, and discredit the administration over a leaked video. The point more interesting to me is why anyone would think that what was leaked was not already had elsewhere with all the sources of real experts in the field. Case in point about the kind of websites doing this kind of work, and this quoted from the link I provided:



"Simply getting the video first but not having the professional knowledge and responsibilities to know what to do with it can not only result in the loss of valuable intelligence but it can actually harm ongoing activities within the official counterterrorism community," he said.

This "has happened time and time again when private citizens and organizations outside of the IC (intelligence community) play in fields where they lack the depth and experience."

[red states rule]

actually his post was a typical knee jerk reaction to try, and discredit the administration over a leaked video. The point more interesting to me is why anyone would think that what was leaked was not already had elsewhere with all the sources of real experts in the field. Case in point about the kind of websites doing this kind of work, and this quoted from the link I provided:

You are expecting the liberal media and liberal hacks like MM to actually look at this in an objective manner

Shame on you!!

[Sir Evil]

You are expecting the liberal media and liberal hacks like MM to actually look at this in an objective manner

Shame on you!!

Not at all, he has no objective other than to simply incite problems whenever possible because he knows no other way of handling simple debate.

[red states rule]

Maybe it was NOT the White House that tipped off the terrorists.............


Qaeda Goes Dark After a U.S. Slip
Enemy Vanishes From Its Web Sites

By ELI LAKE
Staff Reporter of the Sun
October 9, 2007

WASHINGTON — Al Qaeda's Internet communications system has suddenly gone dark to American intelligence after the leak of Osama bin Laden's September 11 speech inadvertently disclosed the fact that we had penetrated the enemy's system.

The intelligence blunder started with what appeared at the time as an American intelligence victory, namely that the federal government had intercepted, a full four days before it was to be aired, a video of Osama bin Laden's first appearance in three years in a video address marking the sixth anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001. On the morning of September 7, the Web site of ABC News posted excerpts from the speech.

But the disclosure from ABC and later other news organizations tipped off Qaeda's internal security division that the organization's Internet communications system, known among American intelligence analysts as Obelisk, was compromised. This network of Web sites serves not only as the distribution system for the videos produced by Al Qaeda's production company, As-Sahab, but also as the equivalent of a corporate intranet, dealing with such mundane matters as expense reporting and clerical memos to mid- and lower-level Qaeda operatives throughout the world.

While intranets are usually based on servers in a discrete physical location, Obelisk is a series of sites all over the Web, often with fake names, in some cases sites that are not even known by their proprietors to have been hacked by Al Qaeda.

One intelligence officer who requested anonymity said in an interview last week that the intelligence community watched in real time the shutdown of the Obelisk system. America's Obelisk watchers even saw the order to shut down the system delivered from Qaeda's internal security to a team of technical workers in Malaysia. That was the last internal message America's intelligence community saw. "We saw the whole thing shut down because of this leak," the official said. "We lost an important keyhole into the enemy."

By Friday evening, one of the key sets of sites in the Obelisk network, the Ekhlaas forum, was back on line. The Ekhlaas forum is a password-protected message board used by Qaeda for recruitment, propaganda dissemination, and as one of the entrance ways into Obelisk for those operatives whose user names are granted permission. Many of the other Obelisk sites are now offline and presumably moved to new secret locations on the World Wide Web.

http://www.nysun.com/article/64163

[retiredman]

I find it humorous. I've shown you in a lie here in this thread. SEVERAL folk here in this thread have shown in clear and convincing fashion why you are screwed up, AND intellectually dishonest in your calling for GWB's head, and yet you continue your stomping and whining and further your tantrum against reason and common sense.

nowhere in this thread have I LIED. nowhere in this thread have I called for GWB's head....nowhere have I placed the direct blame for this debacle on his shoulders. All I have said is that he, as CinC and leader of the executive branch of government, bears some level of ultimate responsibility for the stuff those folks he appoints do on his behalf.




First off, I have already addressed your comments about "Senior Officials." You don't know WHO they are or in what capacity they served, OR what they were even told. You've got a mental boner because you get your rocks off linking Bush to EVERYTHING bad done by ANYBODY in government.


actually, I am pretty sure I DO know who they are: Joel Bagnal, deputy assistant to the president for homeland security and Michael Leiter at the National Counterterrorism Center. Fred Fielding, White House counsel was also in on the deal. They were all emailed copies of the video and a transcript thereof by Rita Katz, the president of the SITE institute...and within a half hour of her email, the transcripts were leaked to the media.

assistant to the president... counsel to the president... senior staff at the national counterterrorism center....NOT 75 year old security guards for the president's gardening equipment.

[mrg666]

at least its team bush now how many officials is he accountable for ?
ffsake if the dog shits in the street it's bush's fault the same dogs great great grandaddy shit in the street it wasnt kennedy's fault

[retiredman]

at least its team bush now how many officials is he accountable for ?
ffsake if the dog shits in the street it's bush's fault the same dogs great great grandaddy shit in the street it wasnt kennedy's fault

it's been team bush since post #1

Are you suggesting that when the counsel to the president and the president's assistant on homeland security screw up, that is no different than a dog shitting in the street?

Does the buck EVER stop on Bush's desk? EVER?

[mrg666]

it's normally "bush " it did make a refreshing change
the dog will shit on the street it's the owners obligation to clear the mess
or an officials job / obligation to catch him or the officials bosses job to ensure the official does his or her job now then we are still very low down in the ratings here and have a mountain of beuracracy to climb before we get to the top man ( george ) how many underlings would you suggest before old george tops the pile ?
1000's of department heads alone so just because there as been a fuk up and mr bush is honcho lets blame him
or sorry in this case its less specific its team bush

[darin]

nowhere in this thread have I LIED. nowhere in this thread have I called for GWB's head....nowhere have I placed the direct blame for this debacle on his shoulders. All I have said is that he, as CinC and leader of the executive branch of government, bears some level of ultimate responsibility for the stuff those folks he appoints do on his behalf.



Lemme get this straight - you call for his head WHILE ADMITTING HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS?

Are you a retard?

[manu1959]

it's been team bush since post #1

Are you suggesting that when the counsel to the president and the president's assistant on homeland security screw up, that is no different than a dog shitting in the street?

Does the buck EVER stop on Bush's desk? EVER?

name a buck that stopped on clinton's desk.....precedence had been set....

[manu1959]

nowhere in this thread have I LIED. nowhere in this thread have I called for GWB's head....nowhere have I placed the direct blame for this debacle on his shoulders. All I have said is that he, as CinC and leader of the executive branch of government, bears some level of ultimate responsibility for the stuff those folks he appoints do on his behalf.


clinton appointed clarke and tenant.......so does bill get responsibility for all the bad shit that happend on their watch?

[actsnoblemartin]

i agree,the new york times doesnt give a dam about the truth, only making america and president bush look bad.


ANYONE who leaks sensitive information should be shot for treason as well as the media outlets that put it out there for everyone to see because hey lets face it "we got to be the ones to scoop a story dont we".

Any government official who leaks this type of information should be forced to resign.


Before you start on the Valerie Plame nonsense remember her husband always introduced her as his spy and it was a known secret to the media that she was a spy...

[retiredman]

Lemme get this straight - you call for his head WHILE ADMITTING HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS?

Are you a retard?

please.... go find a quote where I call for George Bush's head for this?

do you have reading comprehension problems?

Do you understand the concept of command accountability?

And can you tell me where the Buck actually does stop in the Bush administration?


name a buck that stopped on clinton's desk.....precedence had been set....

monica. are you suggesting that he did not accept sole responsibility for his sexual indiscretions?

and that is your answer? You give your own guy a free pass and let him act as irresponsibly as you claim Bill Clinton acted? Hmmmm I wonder why you didn't give Kerry that same sort of latitude? could it be you're a partisan hack?


clinton appointed clarke and tenant.......so does bill get responsibility for all the bad shit that happend on their watch?

of COURSE not. What a ridiculous question! George Bush made an independent decision as to the qualifications of both men. Once he took them on into HIS administration, he owned them. He certainly replaced multitudinous members of Clinton's administration with his own people (how about that head of FEMA? :laugh2:) Clarke and Tenant were Dubya's boys as soon as the baton was passed.

[darin]

please.... go find a quote where I call for George Bush's head for this?

do you have reading comprehension problems?

Do you understand the concept of command accountability?




Here:

It is definitely time to take the keys away from clowns driving the bus.

[Sir Evil]

Already a known liar so no need to point out his lack of integrity when it is in just about every post he makes.

[darin]

Already a known liar so no need to point out his lack of integrity when it is in just about every post he makes.

..because he'll say his comment about removing those who are in charge was NOT directed towards the President. He changes the meanings of his words after he's caught in lies.

[Sir Evil]

..because he'll say his comment about removing those who are in charge was NOT directed towards the President. He changes the meanings of his words after he's caught in lies.

Yep, and very typical at that. Most of his so called arguments take a twist, and usually a complete derailing of the original topic.

[Abbey Marie]

at least its team bush now how many officials is he accountable for ?
ffsake if the dog shits in the street it's bush's fault the same dogs great great grandaddy shit in the street it wasnt kennedy's fault

Well, that's a novel way of looking at it, but it is right on the money. :clap:

[manu1959]

please.... go find a quote where I call for George Bush's head for this?

do you have reading comprehension problems?

Do you understand the concept of command accountability?

And can you tell me where the Buck actually does stop in the Bush administration?

monica. are you suggesting that he did not accept sole responsibility for his sexual indiscretions?

and that is your answer? You give your own guy a free pass and let him act as irresponsibly as you claim Bill Clinton acted? Hmmmm I wonder why you didn't give Kerry that same sort of latitude? could it be you're a partisan hack?

of COURSE not. What a ridiculous question! George Bush made an independent decision as to the qualifications of both men. Once he took them on into HIS administration, he owned them. He certainly replaced multitudinous members of Clinton's administration with his own people (how about that head of FEMA? :laugh2:) Clarke and Tenant were Dubya's boys as soon as the baton was passed.

that is it .... monica? for fuck sake he denied it, he pulled a scooter libby .....

he gets no responsibility for the US embassy bombings, wtc I, the cole, somalia, the development and growth of al queda for 8 years...

all done under clinton tenant and clarke.....no responsibility for that....

as for kerry....he did himself in...

[Sir Evil]

that is it .... monica? for fuck sake he denied it, he pulled a scooter libby .....

he gets no responsibility for the US embassy bombings, wtc I, the cole, somalia, the development and growth of al queda for 8 years...

all done under clinton tenant and clarke.....no responsibility for that....

as for kerry....he did himself in...

According to Homo the clinton admin was unaware of osama, and much of the terrorist stuff. Although he will deny it we did argue the point before. Here is a interesting article, and a must read when blame must be passed around.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958

[retiredman]

that is it .... monica? for fuck sake he denied it, he pulled a scooter libby .....

he gets no responsibility for the US embassy bombings, wtc I, the cole, somalia, the development and growth of al queda for 8 years...

all done under clinton tenant and clarke.....no responsibility for that....

as for kerry....he did himself in...

He initially denied it. He certainly accepted ownership of it... and I certainly hold his administration accountable for the responses to terrorist acts under his watch..... I think, however,that using post 9/11 hindsight about Clinton's responses to the growing threat from AQ is not really all that accurate or fair. The times he DID try to do something against OBL, he was castigated by congressional republicans for "wagging the dog".... it doesn't seem quite right to now go back with post 9/11 clarity and blame HIM for failing to see something that none of us really saw at the time.

But in this current matter....senior folks in the Bush administration screwed up. Bush clearly did not leak the video personally, but he did exercise his judgment in bestowing special trust and confidence in the people who did.

and as for your suggestion that Kerry "did himself in", while he was not my first choice candidate and I was not all that pleased with him, he certainly had a great deal of help from Team Rove and the SBVT gang. lol

oh...and as an editorial edition:


..because he'll say his comment about removing those who are in charge was NOT directed towards the President. He changes the meanings of his words after he's caught in lies.

my comments about removing those in charge was clearly aimed at removing the republican party from control of the executive branch in 2008. It would be frivolous to attempt to impeach Bush for this... I never suggested any such thing.

[darin]

my comments about removing those in charge was clearly aimed at removing the republican party from control of the executive branch in 2008. It would be frivolous to attempt to impeach Bush for this... I never suggested any such thing.

lmao - of COURSE!! It's unreasonable to think you meant 'those driving the bus' was NOT about the PRESIDENT!

You know, I know, and the readers of this board know you were talking about the President in the OP. You are a joke.

[retiredman]

lmao - of COURSE!! It's unreasonable to think you meant 'those driving the bus' was NOT about the PRESIDENT!

You know, I know, and the readers of this board know you were talking about the President in the OP. You are a joke.


I have no idea what you find reasonable or otherwise. I merely stated what I had intended by that comment - and it is an analogy I have used on and off for well over a year now. Time to take the keys away from those driving the bus. Time to take the keys away from the political party that has pissed away all of the goodwill from all corners of the globe that 9/11 inspired. Time to take away the keys from the political party that has flushed a fortune down the toilet in Iraq and has less than zero to show for it. This isn't about Bush...it is about his party and their flawed and overly simplistic vision.

I personally think that Bush's misleading statements about Saddam and Al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction and 9/11 made in the lead up to this war in Iraq are infinitely more serious than "I did not have sex with that woman" and have led to horifice consequences, but I have never expected congress to impeach him for it....especially given the country's distasteful reaction the last time a president was impeached.

And if I am a joke to you, that is really not a very big deal to me. I would, however, welcome the opportunity to raise the level of our discourse, but I think that your immaturity when coupled with your inordinate amount of admin/moderator power and your seemingly irrational hated for me and obsession with "putting me in my place" will ultimately prevent that. You could surprise me, though!

[jimnyc]

Time to take away the keys from the political party that has flushed a fortune down the toilet in Iraq and has less than zero to show for it.

That's a huge pile of crap. I made a thread about the many accomplishments in Iraq thus far and it was barely acknowledged by the Bush haters. But that's ok, you guys don't have to acknowledge it for it to be reality. Some of us look at it for what it is and see the good and bad happenings, while others only see the bad because they WANT to see failure in order to blame a political party. Very sad.

[Sir Evil]

That's a huge pile of crap. I made a thread about the many accomplishments in Iraq thus far and it was barely acknowledged by the Bush haters. But that's ok, you guys don't have to acknowledge it for it to be reality. Some of us look at it for what it is and see the good and bad happenings, while others only see the bad because they WANT to see failure in order to blame a political party. Very sad.

:laugh2:

This ass monkey has been using that term for as long as I can remember, ask him how they will use those keys as they have'nt figured it out quite yet.

[retiredman]

That's a huge pile of crap. I made a thread about the many accomplishments in Iraq thus far and it was barely acknowledged by the Bush haters. But that's ok, you guys don't have to acknowledge it for it to be reality. Some of us look at it for what it is and see the good and bad happenings, while others only see the bad because they WANT to see failure in order to blame a political party. Very sad.


if you do ten things that are really good...and thirty things that are really bad, is your net less than zero or what?

I have never said that we have accomplished zero in Iraq. We have succeeded in making their power grid worse than it was before, we have succeeded in getting their oil production back to a level less than it was before...we have succeeded in arming the very sunni militiamen that used to kill us so that they can kill AQ foreigners who are even MORE of a bother to them than we were.... but who will they train those weapons upon when they have driven out that handful of deadenders in their final throes? We have succeeded in empowering Iran to rise up and take center stage as THE dominant force in the region sparking conflicts not only in Iraq, but in Syria, Lebanon and Israel...we have babysat while Iraqis voted twice and appoved a constitution along strictly sectarian lines... and we have seen that the bitterness between sunni and shiite is not going away no matter how many fingertips are dipped in purple ink. Even their own government officials acknowledge the sectarian reconciliation is a pipedream and that sectarian violence will never be stopped - the best hope is to control it somewhat....hey! the shiite warlords have decided to bury THEIR hatchet which will make them a more cohesive fighting force now.... good news, eh?
we have experienced 32K American casualties and have spent close to a trillion dollars (but 35billion for kids healthcare will somehow bust the budget!)

Oh...and we have painted some schools and rescued some kittens from trees. yippee.

And all the while, the folks who attacked us six years ago are right where they were when we lost interest in getting them and they are, by our own government's intelligence estimates, just as strong as they were the day they attacked us.... and they were able, not too long ago, to hold an outdoor televised graduation ceremony for 300 suicide bombers in Afghanistan and our presence there is SO sparse we not only did not know about it in advance, but were unable to respond to it.

I am sure we have done tons of great stuff in Iraq and we have all sorts of accomplishments that we can pat ourselves on the back for...but the net effect of this war in Iraq has been less than zero. IMHO.

and by the way when you say:

Some of us look at it for what it is and see the good and bad happenings, while others only see the bad because they WANT to see failure in order to blame a political party. Very sad

I say bullshit. Don't even think you can explain why I think the way I think and don't even THINK that I WANT america to fail. That is profoundly unwarranted and quite insulting. I want America to succeed very very much. I just happen to believe that we are going about it in a bass ackwards way.

I could just as easily say that some people are willing to absolutely ignore the negative consequences of our failed policy in Iraq and refuse to acknowledge how poorly our war against Islamic extremism is really going and how that war has been negatively impacted by the Iraq debacle because THEY want their party to succeed and THEY can only think of what it will mean as far as 30 years of conservative supreme court rulings if we can just keep democrats out of office for at least one more term so that a republican can appoint just two more...then Roe goes away and affirmative action goes away and school prayer is back and achieving that glorious conservative theocratic political dream is worth tearing the middle east apart for. it is worth flushing our children's fortunes down the drain and bringing home thousands of good american men and women in boxes. Very sad.

How does that make YOU feel?

[darin]

None of that surprises me. You refuse to find the amazing accomplishments in Iraq becaue you don't WANT amazing, good, noble things to come from the actions of somebody you hate.

[jimnyc]

Thank you for proving my point, MFM!

Your failure to acknowledge what is right before your eyes and make retarded talk about rescuing kittens instead shows you offer nothing on the subject.

Your excused.

NEXT!

[DragonStryk72]

I could just as easily say that some people are willing to absolutely ignore the negative consequences of our failed policy in Iraq and refuse to acknowledge how poorly our war against Islamic extremism is really going and how that war has been negatively impacted by the Iraq debacle because THEY want their party to succeed and THEY can only think of what it will mean as far as 30 years of conservative supreme court rulings if we can just keep democrats out of office for at least one more term so that a republican can appoint just two more...then Roe goes away and affirmative action goes away and school prayer is back and achieving that glorious conservative theocratic political dream is worth tearing the middle east apart for. it is worth flushing our children's fortunes down the drain and bringing home thousands of good american men and women in boxes. Very sad.

How does that make YOU feel?

alright, one point I'd like to make here, and that is: Bush & co. are not conservatives.

What have they conserved? certainly not money, since they've spent more than any administration that came before them.

They haven't conserved States rights, since the federalization of the public schools for the "no child left behind" act, as well as the "Patriot" Act.

They haven't conserved morals or ethics, blatantly and repeatedly lying about "black sites", as well as he reasons for the war itself. Holding everyone save yourselves to higher standards is not moral, ethical, or even a wise thing to do.

They haven't conserved natural resources, asking not ONCE for any form of war-time production, recycling programs, victory gardens, etc..

They do not stand for smaller government, having continuously increased the size of the government over the last almost 7 years.

They are not conservatives, they merely play them for the crowd, because they know if they tap the gay marriage button, the christian button, and the abortion button, they can get people to vote for them, even if they have absolutely no intention of actually carrying out any of these things. It also makes it so that the sides polarize, which helps them, since the simple point of fact is that this keeps anyone from having an elightened debate anywhere about politics. Bad people hace hijacked a good cause, and the ones who still truly believe in the cause need to start stepping up more.

[retiredman]

None of that surprises me. You refuse to find the amazing accomplishments in Iraq becaue you don't WANT amazing, good, noble things to come from the actions of somebody you hate.

I can't tell you how annoying it is for twits like you to not only tell me what I don't want, but then go on to tell me why I don't want it.

You do not have a fucking clue what you are talking about.

I would LOVE for sunnis and shiites to come together in central Baghdad and have a giant group hug and put aside a millenium of hatred and enmity at the urging of America.

I would also LOVE for world hunger to be eliminated, a cure for all diseases found, and the Boston Red Sox to win twenty world series in a row.

I lived in the middle east. I have seen sunnis and shiites turn their faces to avoid looking at one another as they met on crowded sidewalks.... I was extraordinarily apprehensive about Bush's plan to bring multicultural jeffersonian democracy to the banks of the euphrates. It was never about not wanting it to work, it was about being fairly certain that it would NOT work.

If you know anything about the history of the region - and it seems as if you don't - you would know that the entity of Iraq was constructed on a map in England somewhere after the end of WW!...and as far as those Brits were concerned, the difference between sunnis, shiites and kurds was nothing more than a minor distinction between brown skinned subordinated people. If they had created THREE countries back then instead of trying to fit three groups who really don't like each other one little bit together in one geographic area and call it a country, we wouldn't have this problem today.

Bush and company clearly bought into the PNAC vision of American dominance and influence in the middle east and we have been paying the price ever since.

No one doubts that American military might can prevail over poorly equipped and poorly trained Iraqi insurgents, BUT TO WHAT ULTIMATE END?

We get the Iraqi army all trained up... the sunnis and the shiites appear to make nice until we leave and then all hell will break loose. And that will happen no matter when we leave.

American military might has won the war it can win....American foreign policy blunders have already lost the blossoming democracy gambit and what is left is a much more powerful Iran...and Islamic extremism and hatred for America undiminished after six years, 32K casualties and nearly a trillion dollars.

The middle east was never a bed of roses...but we have turned it into a deep hole filled with sht.... and, unfortunately, the next president will inherit that hole full of shit. I am convinced that the next president has got to change direction and QUIT DIGGING. If there were a republican running for office that could and would do that, I would not vote for him, certainly, but I WOULD, perhaps, not be all that upset if he won.

[retiredman]

Thank you for proving my point, MFM!

Your failure to acknowledge what is right before your eyes and make retarded talk about rescuing kittens instead shows you offer nothing on the subject.

Your excused.

NEXT!

nice dodge, by the way. Do me a favor. Go erase the comment about kittens and then address the rest of a rather lengthy post of mine..... if you dare.... or if you have the intellectual chops to even try, that is.

you're up!

[jimnyc]

nice dodge, by the way. Do me a favor. Go erase the comment about kittens and then address the rest of a rather lengthy post of mine..... if you dare.... or if you have the intellectual chops to even try, that is.

you're up!

Sorry, I spent nearly 2 hours researching and writing a post outlining the many accomplishments in Iraq. These are FACT and cannot be disputed. My intellectual chops left you in the wind 2 weeks ago when I wrote that post.

So once more, you are dismissed. Have a lovely evening.

NEXT!

[Sir Evil]

Sorry, I spent nearly 2 hours researching and writing a post outlining the many accomplishments in Iraq. These are FACT and cannot be disputed. My intellectual chops left you in the wind 2 weeks ago when I wrote that post.

So once more, you are dismissed. Have a lovely evening.

NEXT!

:lol::laugh2::lol::laugh2::lol::laugh2:

[retiredman]

And as I said, I have no doubt that we have accomplished many wonderful things in Iraq.

Do you think those wonderful things will make sunnis and shiites stop hating one another?

Do you think those wonderful things will stop a shiite dominated Iraqi government from aligning itself with Iran?

Do you think all those wonderful things will somehow diminish the attractiveness of Al Qaeda throughout the region?

Do you think those wonderful things will stop Iraq from dissolving into civil war after we leave?

[jimnyc]

And as I said, I have no doubt that we have accomplished many wonderful things in Iraq.

Do you think those wonderful things will make sunnis and shiites stop hating one another?

Do you think those wonderful things will stop a shiite dominated Iraqi government from aligning itself with Iran?

Do you think all those wonderful things will somehow diminish the attractiveness of Al Qaeda throughout the region?

Do you think those wonderful things will stop Iraq from dissolving into civil war after we leave?

But you said there was NOTHING to show for the money that was invested, and you were wrong.

[retiredman]

But you said there was NOTHING to show for the money that was invested, and you were wrong.


no. I said that we had a net effect of less than zero.

I believe that, had we not invaded Iraq, and had we concentrated, instead, on seeking out and destroying Al Qaeda on multiple fronts, and had we concentrated on putting pressure on the gulf state monarchies to democratize, and had we concentrated on working the Israeli-Palestinian problem with some real tough diplomacy, we would be significantly further along towards diffusing and defeating Islamic extremism.

You can say I am wrong if you like...but you must admit that, right now, it would be GREAT if we could do three things that we are not doing well:

1. keep Islamic extremists out of Iraq
2. keep sunnis and shiites from killing one another
3. keep Iran from flexing its muscles in the region unencumbered.

I suggest that, despite what a total prick he was, Saddam did all three of those things better than we did.

P.S. why avoid answering the four questions I posed when you replied?

[mrg666]

no. I said that we had a net effect of less than zero.

I believe that, had we not invaded Iraq, and had we concentrated, instead, on seeking out and destroying Al Qaeda on multiple fronts, and had we concentrated on putting pressure on the gulf state monarchies to democratize, and had we concentrated on working the Israeli-Palestinian problem with some real tough diplomacy, we would be significantly further along towards diffusing and defeating Islamic extremism.

You can say I am wrong if you like...but you must admit that, right now, it would be GREAT if we could do three things that we are not doing well:

1. keep Islamic extremists out of Iraq
2. keep sunnis and shiites from killing one another
3. keep Iran from flexing its muscles in the region unencumbered.

I suggest that, despite what a total prick he was, Saddam did all three of those things better than we did.

P.S. why avoid answering the four questions I posed when you replied?

Islamic extremists are in iraq and pakistan and new york and london etc etc etc etc dont you get it .
diplomatics do not work
the sunnis and shiites have hated each other for years there culture is more or less medevil when these feuds are in place a man or womans life as medevil values ie zilch nothing, mine and yours as even lesser value to them than an ant casssualy unknowingly stepped on in the street . its a war that surrpasess even the previous two because at least we knew who they were they wore fukin uniforms and if it was the wrong one you shot at it

[retiredman]

Islamic extremists are in iraq and pakistan and new york and london etc etc etc etc dont you get it .
diplomatics do not work
the sunnis and shiites have hated each other for years there culture is more or less medevil when these feuds are in place a man or womans life as medevil values ie zilch nothing, mine and yours as even lesser value to them than an ant casssualy unknowingly stepped on in the street . its a war that surrpasess even the previous two because at least we knew who they were they wore fukin uniforms and if it was the wrong one you shot at it
thank you for your opinion.

I disagree.

How would we know that DIPLOMATICS[sic] don't work? We haven't tried!

And if you agree that sunnes and shiites have hated one another for a millenium, why then does it make any fucking sense to spend a trillion dollars, five years, 32K dead and wounded and untold wasted goodwill in an effort to get them to have a fucking GROUP HUG?????

[Sir Evil]

thank you for your opinion.

I disagree.

How would we know that DIPLOMATICS[sic] don't work? We haven't tried!

And if you agree that sunnes and shiites have hated one another for a millenium, why then does it make any fucking sense to spend a trillion dollars, five years, 32K dead and wounded and untold wasted goodwill in an effort to get them to have a fucking GROUP HUG?????

mrg666, disregard this dickhead, he knows not how to properly discuss an issue, and will completely dismiss the possibility of any opinion that is not on the same level as his. You will be wasting time thinking anything different.

[Kathianne]

no. I said that we had a net effect of less than zero.

I believe that, had we not invaded Iraq, and had we concentrated, instead, on seeking out and destroying Al Qaeda on multiple fronts, and had we concentrated on putting pressure on the gulf state monarchies to democratize, and had we concentrated on working the Israeli-Palestinian problem with some real tough diplomacy, we would be significantly further along towards diffusing and defeating Islamic extremism.

You can say I am wrong if you like...but you must admit that, right now, it would be GREAT if we could do three things that we are not doing well:

1. keep Islamic extremists out of Iraq
2. keep sunnis and shiites from killing one another
3. keep Iran from flexing its muscles in the region unencumbered.

I suggest that, despite what a total prick he was, Saddam did all three of those things better than we did.

P.S. why avoid answering the four questions I posed when you replied?

So you wish Saddam was still there, that we had not invaded? The only problem I see as a result of our invading Iraq is the problem in your #2. Iran had been more than a problem before Saddam.

[retiredman]

So you wish Saddam was still there, that we had not invaded? The only problem I see as a result of our invading Iraq is the problem in your #2. Iran had been more than a problem before Saddam.

Do I WISH Saddam were still there? Oddly phrased and loaded question. Saddam was an asshole. He kept islamic extremists at bay, he kept sunnis and shiites from killing one another, and he DID act as a foil to Iranian regional hegemony. I do not think it is a coincidence that the Hezbollah resurgence if Lebanon happened AFTER we had become entrenched in Iraq and not before.

[Kathianne]

Do I WISH Saddam were still there? Oddly phrased and loaded question. Saddam was an asshole. He kept islamic extremists at bay, he kept sunnis and shiites from killing one another, and he DID act as a foil to Iranian regional hegemony. I do not think it is a coincidence that the Hezbollah resurgence if Lebanon happened AFTER we had become entrenched in Iraq and not before.

Loaded or not, you failed to answer, but felt compelled to jump in. Why?

[retiredman]

Loaded or not, you failed to answer, but felt compelled to jump in. Why?

you asked me a question. I am glad Saddam is dead. I am not glad that we invaded Iraq and destabilized the region in a five year effort that has cost us much and not accomplished anything of real substance in our war against Al Qaeda and the Islamic extremist mindset.

[mrg666]

mrg666, disregard this dickhead, he knows not how to properly discuss an issue, and will completely dismiss the possibility of any opinion that is not on the same level as his. You will be wasting time thinking anything different.

thank you se i have developed that opinion allready
........................
i never said a millenium (you twisted that one ) years i said from the 60's my guess (wonder why)
they are terrorists diplomatics wont work although i would wager that those avenues have been tried and failed ( but we will never know )
you arent just dealing with terorists you have religeous zealots who from birth have been brought up on a religeon that when kept clean is probably wonderfull but when distorted the power of that upbringing gelled with some hatred and a few promises is the result we have they really dont care i cant say about the tower bombings but i know for a fact that fellow muslims were maimed and died in the london bombings thats what we are dealing with and the scary thing is we dont know who they are till they are blowing themselves all over us shortly before we join them
im totaly disregarding the group hug comment reconciliation may have got a reply

[retiredman]

mrg666: the question posed herein is a legitimate one:


And if you agree that sunnis and shiites have hated one another for a millenium, why then does it make any sense to spend a trillion dollars, five years, 32K dead and wounded and untold wasted goodwill in an effort to get them to have a reconciliation?????

and it has been a millenium of bad blood between sunnis and shiites. that is historical fact

[mrg666]

im totaly disregarding the group hug comment reconciliation may have got a reply
thats why
why do what as been done and still have hatred you have to try and patch things up the costs you state i dont know if they are correct but why go to that trouble of liberation (thats what it was ) to leave behind civil war ? can you now get my gyst or sorry the plans of the government to try and sort out the internal problems
i can imagine you back in the 40's ( in a previous life of course ) demanding similar strategies with the nazi regime

[retiredman]

thats why
why do what as been done and still have hatred you have to try and patch things up the costs you state i dont know if they are correct but why go to that trouble of liberation (thats what it was ) to leave behind civil war ? can you now get my gyst or sorry the plans of the government to try and sort out the internal problems
i can imagine you back in the 40's ( in a previous life of course ) demanding similar strategies with the nazi regime

sunnis and shiites have been at each other's throats for a millenium. "Iraq" is asn artificial construct created by Europeans at the end of WWI as they carved up the Ottoman empire as spoils of war. The boundaries of Iraq encompass the homes of three mutually hateful distrustful ethnic groups and we will not be able to bring about a reconciliation of a feud that has lasted 1300 years.

And I am sorry, but your nazi germany analogy is nonsensical.

[mrg666]

mrg666: the question posed herein is a legitimate one:



and it has been a millenium of bad blood between sunnis and shiites. that is historical fact

you are correct in that statement ( not the previous one )
but the only advantage Shiites had in iraq was when saddam got some power and that power rose till he was president ( not elect )

ill edit this none but referance to shiites is wrong it was meant sunni apologies all

[retiredman]

you are correct in that statement ( not the previous one )
but the only advantage Shiites had in iraq was when saddam got some power and that power rose till he was president ( not elect )

what???? Saddam was a sunni baathist

[mrg666]

sunnis and shiites have been at each other's throats for a millenium. "Iraq" is asn artificial construct created by Europeans at the end of WWI as they carved up the Ottoman empire as spoils of war. The boundaries of Iraq encompass the homes of three mutually hateful distrustful ethnic groups and we will not be able to bring about a reconciliation of a feud that has lasted 1300 years.

And I am sorry, but your nazi germany analogy is nonsensical.

no it isnt nonsensicle you repeatedly rant about the most riddiculous things that i think even historicly you cant learn ,
back in the days that we didnt realise that the camps were killing millions but we knew that the nazis were no good (ring any bells ) you would have still put up your pathetic arguments only to be shot down later but come bouncing back with more pathetic arguments

[mrg666]

the majority of his childhood youth was with his SUNNI family( uncle) and his affiliations were with them whatever his politics he felt he could only trust his fellow sunnis you know that the fukin world knows that

[LuvRPgrl]

The media should be controlled?

Yea, by themselves. Its called self control. something libs dont seem to like or think is important.

[LuvRPgrl]

How would we know that DIPLOMATICS[sic] don't work? We haven't tried!

REALLY NOW?? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
Question: Are you that ignorant of history, delusional or both?
I really hate to see you anti war, supposed peace activists cry in your beer al the time.

[Sir Evil]

REALLY NOW?? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
Question: Are you that ignorant of history, delusional or both?
I really hate to see you anti war, supposed peace activists cry in your beer al the time.

Yes, he is!

[LuvRPgrl]

Do I WISH Saddam were still there? Oddly phrased and loaded question. Saddam was an asshole. He kept islamic extremists at bay, he kept sunnis and shiites from killing one another,.

well of course they werent killing each other, saddam was taking care of that for them, killing them by the hundreds of thousands.
Russia circa 1950's - 1970's was more stable than today also,
as were the Killing fields of Cambodia more stable than their previous decade or two.
And Germany circa 1930, LOOK AT THE STABILITY HITLER BROUGHT THEM !!!

YEAAAAAAA, HEIL HITLER !!!

AND AS USUAL, LIBS CONTRADICT THEMSELVES. ON one hand they scream Iraq isnt even a natural country, it was forced into existence by....blah, blah, blah...., then they love to scream how it was more stable under saddan, WHO WAS HOLDING THAT UN NATURAL COUNTRY TOGETHER. So which is it, you want the country held together as it is now or not???? One lib, two mouths....

Not to mention the most important thing above all anyways, something lost on the idiotic hypocritical, control freak liberals, THE IRAQIS didnt want saddam in power, AND THEY WELCOMED our intervention. Now, go ahead and quote OUT OF CONTEXT some polls that say otherwise. All it will show to anyone who is well informed is that you are a liar and a hypocrite.

[retiredman]

well now... if the american military's primary purpose was to do what the Iraqi people wanted for the benefit of the citizenry of Iraq, then you might have a point. I care more about the safety and security of Americans than I do about Iraqis. I wonder why you don't share that priority?

Iraq may have been run by a dictator, but it was not home to OUR real enemies - the Islamic extremists... and it WAS acting as a foil to Iranian hegemony. It is no coincidence that the Hezbollah resurgence in Lebanon happened AFTER Saddam was gone and we were embroiled in the sectarian mess in Iraq.

[red states rule]

well now... if the american military's primary purpose was to do what the Iraqi people wanted for the benefit of the citizenry of Iraq, then you might have a point. I care more about the safety and security of Americans than I do about Iraqis. I wonder why you don't share that priority?

Iraq may have been run by a dictator, but it was not home to OUR real enemies - the Islamic extremists... and it WAS acting as a foil to Iranian hegemony. It is no coincidence that the Hezbollah resurgence in Lebanon happened AFTER Saddam was gone and we were embroiled in the sectarian mess in Iraq.

Iraq MAY have been run by a dictator???

Oh, to the moonbat left, the worlds only dictator is Pres Bush

[retiredman]

the majority of his childhood youth was with his SUNNI family( uncle) and his affiliations were with them whatever his politics he felt he could only trust his fellow sunnis you know that the fukin world knows that


I know that Saddam was a sunni and a ba'athist and not a shiite as you claim. And I would suggest that all the fuckin' world knows THAT...except, I guess, you.

[diuretic]

Iraq MAY have been run by a dictator???

Oh, to the moonbat left, the worlds only dictator is Pres Bush

I think you misread the post. The "may" is actually an acknowledgement of a fact. For example, Michael Vick may have been killing dogs but he is a good football player.

[retiredman]

I think you misread the post. The "may" is actually an acknowledgement of a fact. For example, Michael Vick may have been killing dogs but he is a good football player.


misreading is what RSR does BEST! His level of english language usage and comprehension is at the My Weekly Reader level.

and he uses faux outrage at the misread sentence to avoid dealing with the rest of the statement. Classic RSR obfuscation. (see...I can use THAT word cuz I know he doesn't know what it means! shhhhh)

[diuretic]

I know that Saddam was a sunni and a ba'athist and not a shiite as you claim. And I would suggest that all the fuckin' world knows THAT...except, I guess, you.

He was a nominal Sunni. He had all sorts in his cabinet, Chaldean Christians as well. Iraq under Saddam, as rotten as he was (but let's not forget the West supported him for so many years because it suited us), ran a secular government. Now Iraq is about to go Shi'ite, that is if it doesn't fragment into three regions. This remnant of the Ottoman Empire was a creation of the West, we needed the oil so we created Iraq.

[retiredman]

absolutely. ba'athism is secular by its very nature!