Reason # 18,435 to hate Bush

[Slider]

You can search on Abu ghraib murder on Google for lots of links. I culled out the most leftist ones. Here's a story from the New Yorker, which is pretty mainstream, and employs the usual source conifirmation practices lacking on most blogs and Fox.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051114fa_fact

There are lots more outside the infamous prison as well. I'm sure I don't need to detail those for you, too. Just read the news.

Slider

[FriedRys]

There were several torture/murders in Abu Garib, and elsewhere. Got a position on those?

Slider
Not enough torture and far too few murders. If we want the Muslim world to respect us, we gotta cater to their core beliefs.

[slapheadmofo]

Yup, we're doing WAY too few beheadings these days. Time to step it up!

[Slider]

Don't worry. Bush and Osama have already worked out the next round of recruitment tactics for al Queda. We should rope in any on-the-fence Muslims soon, so we can move to Phase II, the World War, pretty soon. That ought to make you guys happy.

Are you draftable? Might not matter, since you've already applied for enlistment, I'm guessing. War mongers like you two MUST be volunteering by now. Otherwise, you'd come across as pussies, what with advocating sadism and not backing it up.

Slider

[slapheadmofo]

Bahahaha....yeah, guess you'd have no problem at all recognizing the kind of pussy that talks a lot of **** on the 'net but doesn't doing anything to back it up huh? ;D :P

Hint - don't take things so seriously. Or, if you must, then quit shooting your e-mouth off and do something about them. Unless of course you're one of those aforementioned pussys...personally, I beheaded three people, a puppy and the cutest little kitty your ever saw just this AM. And that was BEFORE my second cup of coffee. So watch your ass.

[FriedRys]

Don't worry. Bush and Osama have already worked out the next round of recruitment tactics for al Queda. We should rope in any on-the-fence Muslims soon, so we can move to Phase II, the World War, pretty soon. That ought to make you guys happy.

Are you draftable? Might not matter, since you've already applied for enlistment, I'm guessing. War mongers like you two MUST be volunteering by now. Otherwise, you'd come across as pussies, what with advocating sadism and not backing it up.

Slider
Not draftable and turned down from military service due to police record involving mayhem and torture, ironic aint it?
But on to your little dig that you can't seem to stop yourself from making, since I advocate sadism and warmongering but aren't enrolled in the military, and thus come across as looking like a pussy, does that mean your effeminate avoidance of armed conflict make you in fact (not just "coming across") a pussy yourself?
And what about the thousands of WW2 vets that would like nothing more than to pull a Dresden on Iraq, that killed plenty of Nazis but are unfit for military duty, are they pussies because they are not active members of the Armed Forces?
Why does a person have to be an active member of the military to advocate an armed responce to hostility? What about gold star moms, are they entitled to an opinion in the matter?
As far as advocating sadism and not backing it up....how do you know what I do in my spare time, if I'm not working or riding, I'm torturing the stinking Iraqi terrorist that my brother brought back for me from Desert Storm.

[Slider]

Bahahaha....yeah, guess you'd have no problem at all recognizing the kind of pussy that talks a lot of **** on the 'net but doesn't doing anything to back it up huh? ;D :P

Hint - don't take things so seriously. Or, if you must, then quit shooting your e-mouth off and do something about them. Unless of course you're one of those aforementioned pussys...personally, I beheaded three people, a puppy and the cutest little kitty your ever saw just this AM. And that was BEFORE my second cup of coffee. So watch your ass.


I get it, torture isn't serious. Beheading is just some party time fun. Sorry, missed that. ::)

So you're high road is what, you're doing more than me? Last I checked you were right here, posting in the exact same place. But backpedalling kinda undermines whatever you have to say, dontcha think?

If defense of democracy is the point, get the Republican scum outta office. They're a far bigger threat than all the Muslims in the world.

Slider

[catbbq]

I get it, torture isn't serious. Beheading is just some party time fun. Sorry, missed that. ::)

So you're high road is what, you're doing more than me? Last I checked you were right here, posting in the exact same place. But backpedalling kinda undermines whatever you have to say, dontcha think?

If defense of democracy is the point, get the Republican scum outta office. They're a far bigger threat than all the Muslims in the world.

Slider


Haven't really tortured much since the frogs when I was a kid. Not that think it is a good idea. I know I would admit to all kind of things that may or may not be true just to get the air conditioner turned down from 80 to 78.

I also am not in the military, nor do I want to be.

Perhaps I am the biggest pussy here on the boards.

But there is no friggin way that the current administration, or any administration in my lifetime, is any kind of threat like the current Muslim terrorists that want us all dead.

I doubt they look at the boards and are making a list of people not to behead because they are against the current administration.

[Slider]

The point is that the complicity of Bush, witting or unwitting, has created far more of "the current Muslim terrorists that want us all dead" than anything Osama could possibly do. And continuation of his policies will advance that process even further.

He's been a disaster; time for a complete rethink. Starting with getting us out of Iraq.

Slider

[kernel crash]

"Bush, witting or unwitting, has created far more of "the current Muslim terrorists that want us all dead" than anything Osama could possibly do."

That's probably the most ridiculous piece of crap you ever sprouted and its down right scary. You are so blinded by your hatred of Bush and the Republicans that you can't even think straight any more. We've been under attack by these muslim extremist long before George Bush came into office. Seems to me most of this started during the Carter administration with the hostage situation in Iran. The 1st attack of the world trade center came almost 15 years ago. The bombing of the marines in Lebanon, the attack of the USS Cole, all before George Bush.

[TrailBate]

"Bush, witting or unwitting, has created far more of "the current Muslim terrorists that want us all dead" than anything Osama could possibly do."

That's probably the most ridiculous piece of crap you ever sprouted and its down right scary.

RIght. This coming from the guy who said those 50,000 Iraqi civilians were gonna die anyway,and at least they don't have to live in America.


You are so blinded by your hatred of Bush and the Republicans that you can't even think straight any more. We've been under attack by these muslim extremist long before George Bush came into office. Seems to me most of this started during the Carter administration with the hostage situation in Iran. The 1st attack of the world trade center came almost 15 years ago. The bombing of the marines in Lebanon, the attack of the USS Cole, all before George Bush.



yeah, WHO attacked us? Not Iraq. The guy that attacked us is in That other country the Republicans cut and ran from. Afghanistan. You want to blame Carter? It was Reagan that turned tail and ran from Beirut. It was Reagan that gave Saddam the intelligence info he needed to launch WMD attacks against Iran, while Reagan was selling arms to terrorists in Iran, then taking that money and giving it to terrorists in Central America. That picture of that american shaking hands with saddam was Rumsfeld.

Blinded by hatred. yeah, where did we find those WMD's? Those mobile biological weapons labs that Powell had pictures of? What happend to that Saddam-Al Qaida link? Has the war paid for itself? Where is Osama? DId the war last only 6 weeks as promised? What happened to those Florida Al qaida terrorists that planned on blowing up the Sears Tower? Oh, that's right, they turned out to be Christians with no weapons, no bombs, no materials, no planning, no capability, and only one of them had ever been in Chicago.

We're not blinded by hatred. Everything that comes out of this administration is a complete lie. Terrorism is going to get worse because of your Dear Leader's complete assinine retarded corrupt policies.

Once you blind followers wake up and realize all these "mistakes" are really LIES, then maybe you'll see straight.

Want to keep supporting this crap anyway? Then the blood of all the innocents, and 2600 Americans is on YOUR hands. YOU are the terrorists.

[Slider]

"Bush, witting or unwitting, has created far more of "the current Muslim terrorists that want us all dead" than anything Osama could possibly do."

That's probably the most ridiculous piece of crap you ever sprouted and its down right scary. You are so blinded by your hatred of Bush and the Republicans that you can't even think straight any more. We've been under attack by these muslim extremist long before George Bush came into office. Seems to me most of this started during the Carter administration with the hostage situation in Iran. The 1st attack of the world trade center came almost 15 years ago. The bombing of the marines in Lebanon, the attack of the USS Cole, all before George Bush.


It isn't hatred, and it isn't blind. It is disgust and anger, and it is extremely well-founded. The only blindness here seems to be yours, as you ignore the vast damage Bush has done. Carter, in case you missed it, didn't start the Iraq war. Osama was a fringe whacko until Bush elevated him in the minds of all Muslims. Sure, he attacked us. We had every reason to invade Afghanistan, where we should have completed the job. But invading Iraq was pure idiocy, and you seem to be among the minority who is missing that point.

Hatred is lumping Iraq with Afghanistan, simply because they're both predominantly Muslim. That is the message received by the many former Muslim moderates that now view the US as a global threat to their way of life. It wasn't Osamsa's doing. It was Bush's.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Speaking of liars...

We ought to start a pool. How many lies did Rove tell the grand jury? He's back in front of them today. Can't be good for the Treasonator.

Slider

From today's NYTimes:

April 26, 2006
Rove to Testify Again in C.I.A. Leak Case
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT
WASHINGTON, April 26 — Karl Rove, the senior counselor to President Bush, is expected to appear this afternoon before a federal grand jury investigating the leak of a Central Intelligence Agency officer's identity.
.
.
.
Even before Mr. Rove arrived at the courthouse, Democrats began to pounce on the issue, one of several controversies they hope to capitalize on in the fall elections.

"This additional Rove visit clearly shows that the Plame investigation is far from over and that Patrick Fitzgerald is living up to his reputation as an impartial, dedicated prosecutor determined to turn over every stone," Senator Charles E. Schumer said in a statement.


So has Slider and Trail Bait come in off the ledge yet? Looks like Rove was innocent all along. Go figure.

[TrailBate]

Innocent? So you believe Rove was not involved in any way of getting Plame's name to the press?

[FriedRys]

Innocent? So you believe Rove was not involved in any way of getting Plame's name to the press?From the New York Times (online) Washington.


Armitage Says He Was the Source in C.I.A. Leak

By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: September 7, 2006
WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 — Expressing regret for his actions and apologies to his administration colleagues, Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, confirmed today that he was the source who first told a columnist about the intelligence officer at the center of the C.I.A. leak case.

“It was a terrible error on my part,” Mr. Armitage said in an interview. He added, “ There wasn’t a day when I didn’t feel like I had let down the President, the Secretary of State, my colleagues, my family and the Wilsons. I value my ability to keep state secrets. This was bad and I really felt badly about this.”

Mr. Armitage also confirmed that he was the anonymous government official who talked to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in June 2003 about Valerie Plame Wilson, the C.I.A. officer, in what is the first known conversation between an administration official and a journalist concerning her.

Mr. Armitage, who has been criticized for keeping his silence for nearly three years, said he had wanted to disclose his role as soon as he realized that he was the main source for Robert D. Novak’s column, published on July 14, 2003, which identified Ms. Wilson as a C.I.A. intelligence officer.

But he said held back at the request of Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor. “He requested that I remain silent,” Mr. Armitage, said.

Expressing irritation over assertions in some newspaper editorials and on some Internet blogs that, by his silence, he had been disloyal to the Bush administration, Mr. Armitage said that he had followed Mr. Bush’s repeated instruction to administration officials to cooperate with the Fitzgerald inquiry.

“I felt like I was doing exactly what he wanted,” he said.

Mr. Armitage testified three times to the grand jury, the last time in December 2005. “I was never subpoenaed,” he said. “I was a cooperating witness from the beginning.”

He said he never hired a lawyer and did not believe that he needed one. “I had made an inadvertent mistake, but a mistake in any event. I deserved whatever was coming to me. And I didn’t need an attorney to tell the truth.”

Earlier this week, after news reports identified him as the source, Mr. Armitage said that Mr. Fitzgerald consented to his publicly disclosing his role. Mr. Fitzgerald had sent Mr. Armitage a letter in February, notifying him that the inquiry into his activities had been closed.

Mr. Novak’s July 2003 column led the C.I.A. to request an investigation into the leak, a move that resulted in the appointment of Mr. Fitzgerald. After nearly two years of investigation, that inquiry led to the indictment of I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, on obstruction charges.

Mr. Armitage said he first told authorities about his conversation with Mr. Novak in October 2003, when he read in a subsequent column by Mr. Novak what he believed was a reference to him. That meant Mr. Armitage’s role was known to the Justice Department almost from the outset of the inquiry, two months before Mr. Fitzgerald was named special counsel in the case.

The confirmation of Mr. Armitage’s role, long the subject of media speculation, shows that the initial disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s identify did not originate from the White House as part of a concerted political attack, but was divulged by a senior State Department official who was not regarded as a close political ally of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Mr. Armitage said he did not tell prosecutors about his conversation with Mr. Woodward until the fall of 2005 because he had forgotten about it. Mr. Armitage said he did not recall the June 2003 conversation until Mr. Woodward called to remind him about it following Mr. Fitzgerald’s news conference announcing of Mr. Libby’s indictment.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/washington/07cnd-armitage.html?hp&ex=1157688000&en=bba0b7a224a2ab60&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[kernel crash]

Innocent? So you believe Rove was not involved in any way of getting Plame's name to the press?

I believe were all innocent until proven guilty. Right now Rove looks like Mr. Clean.

[Slider]

I guess you guys missed the fact that Novak said in the original column that "two senior administration officials" provided confirmation about Plame's ID. Armitage was not an adminstration official, and Libby is getting his due process. Guess who that leaves.

Slider

[kernel crash]

You can't be serious. The special prosecuter Fitzgerald has already cleared Rove. And all Libby is guilty of is getting his facts mixed up. Fitzgerald knew from the beginning who did the leaking. The rest was a fishing expedition to keep himself in the spotlight and see what else he might dredge up. The expectations for major indictments was set real high early on and even you have to admit, from a Democratic point of view, that this is a big let down. Meanwhile Bush's poll numbers are up thanks to, of all people, Bill Clinton, Sandy (whats that buldge in my pants) Berger and Madaline Allbright who look pretty pathetic trying to squash the "path to 9/11". Funny, I don't remember Bush making such a squawk when Farenheit 9/11 came out. I would love to see a miniseries on what Berger took out of the National archives. Can you imagine if Condi Rice did something like that. The horror!

[Slider]

Cleared Rove because...He told the truth? Now you must be kidding. He opens his mouth, he lies. But I am using primary source, Novak, who said he had two confirmations in the administration. If not Rove, who?

Slider

[Slappy]

You?

[Slider]

Yeah, "W" and me go way back. I bought him his first of many brewskis. I helped cover up the DUI thingy. I brokered the bailout of his oil company, in return for favors from daddy. I even turned him on to that classic, Mein Kampf, which has served him so well as he tackles the mighty task of guiding this Ship of State. Of course, it was the comic book version, what with the ADD and all. But, the effect has clearly been as I intended.

Rove is really just his butt buddy, but we don't talk about that too much.

Slider

[Slappy]

Yeah, "W" and me go way back. I bought him his first of many brewskis. I helped cover up the DUI thingy. I brokered the bailout of his oil company, in return for favors from daddy. I even turned him on to that classic, Mein Kampf, which has served him so well as he tackles the mighty task of guiding this Ship of State. Of course, it was the comic book version, what with the ADD and all. But, the effect has clearly been as I intended.

Rove is really just his butt buddy, but we don't talk about that too much.

Slider

hehehehe....:D

[FriedRys]

I knew there was something fruity about those fraternities, must be the Greek fixation.

[TrailBate]

saying Rove is innocent is like saying Clinton was innocent of doing Lewinsky. There is plenty of testimony from several people who say that Rove, at the very least, confirmed the Plame info. Not enough evidence was found to convict him, that's all.

[kernel crash]

There is plenty of testimony from several people who say that Rove, at the very least, confirmed the Plame info.

If a half dozen people let it slip that Valerie was a covert agent, and Rove comes along and "allegedly" makes the same comment, after the fact, is he really guilty of outing Valerie Plame? How could he be guilty if that information is already out there? Your beating a dead horse here. In fact your just beating the stain of a previous dead horse. You got nothing and you know it. Fitzgerald's got nothing and you know it. But keep digging.

[Mr_Cheeze]

but... but Carl Rove...

but... but Tom Delay...

but... but... well... um... those guys just suck, ok? There.

[TrailBate]

If a half dozen people let it slip that Valerie was a covert agent, and Rove comes along and "allegedly" makes the same comment, after the fact, is he really guilty of outing Valerie Plame? How could he be guilty if that information is already out there? Your beating a dead horse here. In fact your just beating the stain of a previous dead horse. You got nothing and you know it. Fitzgerald's got nothing and you know it. But keep digging.

Oh Please. Assume Rove KNEW Plame's identity was SUPPOSE to be secret. A reporter comes along and says, "Hey, I heard this about Valerie Plame." What do you think the INTELLIGENT response would be? It SHOULD have been something like, "I cannot confirm that." Not Rove, he said, "Yeah, I heard that too."

Brilliant. What we DO know is that Plame's identity was outed because he had the balls to come out and say Bush was lying about Iraq intelligence. and YOU know it.

[TrailBate]

but... but Carl Rove...

but... but Tom Delay...

but... but... well... um... those guys just suck, ok? There.

They don't just suck. They are traitors involved in the American Fascist Party.

[kernel crash]

"Oh Please. Assume Rove KNEW Plame's identity was SUPPOSE to be secret. A reporter comes along and says, "Hey, I heard this about Valerie Plame." What do you think the INTELLIGENT response would be? It SHOULD have been something like, "I cannot confirm that." Not Rove, he said, "Yeah, I heard that too."

First of all your making a couple of assumptions here as to what the conversation actually sounded like. Second if Rove said "Yeah I heard that too", then that would never stand up in court because he is not actually outing her. He is just saying Yeah I heard that rumor too. He is not confirming or denying that statement. But then again your just paraphrasing here. Bottom line = no indictment, no crime committed, no law broken. Move on.

[Slider]

"Bush, witting or unwitting, has created far more of "the current Muslim terrorists that want us all dead" than anything Osama could possibly do."

That's probably the most ridiculous piece of crap you ever sprouted and its down right scary. You are so blinded by your hatred of Bush and the Republicans that you can't even think straight any more...

This is what I'm talking about. Today's NYTimes.

Slider





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 24, 2006
Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat
By MARK MAZZETTI
WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts were interviewed for this article, and all spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified intelligence document. The officials included employees of several government agencies, and both supporters and critics of the Bush administration. All of those interviewed had either seen the final version of the document or participated in the creation of earlier drafts. These officials discussed some of the document’s general conclusions but not details, which remain highly classified.

Officials with knowledge of the intelligence estimate said it avoided specific judgments about the likelihood that terrorists would once again strike on United States soil. The relationship between the Iraq war and terrorism, and the question of whether the United States is safer, have been subjects of persistent debate since the war began in 2003.

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue, and are approved by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence. Their conclusions are based on analysis of raw intelligence collected by all of the spy agencies.

Analysts began working on the estimate in 2004, but it was not finalized until this year. Part of the reason was that some government officials were unhappy with the structure and focus of earlier versions of the document, according to officials involved in the discussion.

Previous drafts described actions by the United States government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, and some policy makers argued that the intelligence estimate should be more focused on specific steps to mitigate the terror threat. It is unclear whether the final draft of the intelligence estimate criticizes individual policies of the United States, but intelligence officials involved in preparing the document said its conclusions were not softened or massaged for political purposes.

Frederick Jones, a White House spokesman, said the White House “played no role in drafting or reviewing the judgments expressed in the National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism.” The estimate’s judgments confirm some predictions of a National Intelligence Council report completed in January 2003, two months before the Iraq invasion. That report stated that the approaching war had the potential to increase support for political Islam worldwide and could increase support for some terrorist objectives.

Documents released by the White House timed to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks emphasized the successes that the United States had made in dismantling the top tier of Al Qaeda.

“Since the Sept. 11 attacks, America and its allies are safer, but we are not yet safe,” concludes one, a report titled “9/11 Five Years Later: Success and Challenges.” “We have done much to degrade Al Qaeda and its affiliates and to undercut the perceived legitimacy of terrorism.”

That document makes only passing mention of the impact the Iraq war has had on the global jihad movement. “The ongoing fight for freedom in Iraq has been twisted by terrorist propaganda as a rallying cry,” it states.

The report mentions the possibility that Islamic militants who fought in Iraq could return to their home countries, “exacerbating domestic conflicts or fomenting radical ideologies.”

On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee released a more ominous report about the terrorist threat. That assessment, based entirely on unclassified documents, details a growing jihad movement and says, “Al Qaeda leaders wait patiently for the right opportunity to attack.”

The new National Intelligence Estimate was overseen by David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, who commissioned it in 2004 after he took up his post at the National Intelligence Council. Mr. Low declined to be interviewed for this article.

The estimate concludes that the radical Islamic movement has expanded from a core of Qaeda operatives and affiliated groups to include a new class of “self-generating” cells inspired by Al Qaeda’s leadership but without any direct connection to Osama bin Laden or his top lieutenants.

It also examines how the Internet has helped spread jihadist ideology, and how cyberspace has become a haven for terrorist operatives who no longer have geographical refuges in countries like Afghanistan.

In early 2005, the National Intelligence Council released a study concluding that Iraq had become the primary training ground for the next generation of terrorists, and that veterans of the Iraq war might ultimately overtake Al Qaeda’s current leadership in the constellation of the global jihad leadership.

But the new intelligence estimate is the first report since the war began to present a comprehensive picture about the trends in global terrorism.

In recent months, some senior American intelligence officials have offered glimpses into the estimate’s conclusions in public speeches.

“New jihadist networks and cells, sometimes united by little more than their anti-Western agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge,” said Gen. Michael V. Hayden, during a speech in San Antonio in April, the month that the new estimate was completed. “If this trend continues, threats to the U.S. at home and abroad will become more diverse and that could lead to increasing attacks worldwide,” said the general, who was then Mr. Negroponte’s top deputy and is now director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

For more than two years, there has been tension between the Bush administration and American spy agencies over the violence in Iraq and the prospects for a stable democracy in the country. Some intelligence officials have said the White House has consistently presented a more optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq than justified by intelligence reports from the field.

Spy agencies usually produce several national intelligence estimates each year on a variety of subjects. The most controversial of these in recent years was an October 2002 document assessing Iraq’s illicit weapons programs. Several government investigations have discredited that report, and the intelligence community is overhauling how it analyzes data, largely as a result of those investigations.

The broad judgments of the new intelligence estimate are consistent with assessments of global terrorist threats by American allies and independent terrorism experts.

The panel investigating the London terrorist bombings of July 2005 reported in May that the leaders of Britain’s domestic and international intelligence services, MI5 and MI6, “emphasized to the committee the growing scale of the Islamist terrorist threat.”

More recently, the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, assigned a grade of “D+” to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism. The council concluded that “there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking.”

[TrailBate]

and...

Seattle Times--A stark assessment of terrorism trends by U.S. intelligence agencies has found that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

LA Daily News--The U.S. military is likely to maintain and may even increase its force of more than 140,000 troops in Iraq through next spring, the top American commander in the region said Tuesday in one of the gloomiest assessments yet of when troops may come home.

CBS News--The Pentagon is in the early stages of drafting a wartime request for up to $100 billion more for Iraq and Afghanistan, lawmakers say, a figure that would push spending related to the wars toward a staggering half-trillion dollars.

Guardian Unlimited--Torture in Iraq is worse now than it was under the regime of Saddam Hussein and "is totally out of hand", according to a United Nations investigator. "The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein," said Manfred Nowak.

[TrailBate]

"Oh Please. Assume Rove KNEW Plame's identity was SUPPOSE to be secret. A reporter comes along and says, "Hey, I heard this about Valerie Plame." What do you think the INTELLIGENT response would be? It SHOULD have been something like, "I cannot confirm that." Not Rove, he said, "Yeah, I heard that too."

First of all your making a couple of assumptions here as to what the conversation actually sounded like. Second if Rove said "Yeah I heard that too", then that would never stand up in court because he is not actually outing her. He is just saying Yeah I heard that rumor too. He is not confirming or denying that statement. But then again your just paraphrasing here. Bottom line = no indictment, no crime committed, no law broken. Move on.

um. okay.
You sound like the people who claim Clinton was innocent because he didn't technically have sex with lewinsky.
You are too blinded by your need to defend the Bush administration.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I'm neither a Clinton nor a Fox News fan, but I enjoyed this exchange immensely. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j79y7i10FY

Never did like that smarmy Wallace. I think Clinton is again creating revisionist history, as he is wont to do, but it was still satisfying watching him lay into that prick.

[Slider]

Wallace was not only out of his league, but prolly was arrogant enough to not even consider that fact when he tossed up the usual Fox crap to someone who actually knows what he is talking about.

But listen to the subtext - Clarke is a smart fellow, who had a full grasp of the threat posed by bin Laden, and Bush used him as a whipping boy for his own complete policy failure.

So we got Fox BS, exposed, Bush incompetence and cover up, exposed, and we all sit here today less safe as a result. Why do people think the Bush mindlessly militaristic approach actually achieves anything? Because the Fox propaganda machine tells them so. Fox morons like Wallace ought to be forced to patrol Baghdad wearing whatever unprotective crap Bush issued them when we first invaded.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Wallace was just trying to be an ambusher like his daddy was. Difference is, Mike Wallace was pretty good at keeping his political bias to himself. Chris is just another shameless Fox shill doing the right's bidding. I loved the way Wallace stuttered and yammered at being called on it.

I think Bubba enjoyed more his stint on Meet The Press, where Russett might as well have openly kissed his ass.

[orangediamback]

Wallace was not only out of his league, but prolly was arrogant enough to not even consider that fact when he tossed up the usual Fox crap to someone who actually knows what he is talking about.

But listen to the subtext - Clarke is a smart fellow, who had a full grasp of the threat posed by bin Laden, and Bush used him as a whipping boy for his own complete policy failure.

So we got Fox BS, exposed, Bush incompetence and cover up, exposed, and we all sit here today less safe as a result. Why do people think the Bush mindlessly militaristic approach actually achieves anything? Because the Fox propaganda machine tells them so. Fox morons like Wallace ought to be forced to patrol Baghdad wearing whatever unprotective crap Bush issued them when we first invaded.

Slider

where you there??? i know i was from march of 2003 till dec 2003.I didnt have body armor i had flak jackets.didnt m,atter cause we didnt wear them.we havnt had ANY bulletproof vests in our military history.Our hummvee's didnt have door(we took em off so we coiuld be aware of our surroundings.with armor u cant see,shoot or realizing what the hell is goin on)The company that protested and wouldnt run missions all should have been courtmarshelled and threw in jail.what am i gonna refuse to do something cause i dont like the situation.....no way.i signed up i obey my orders and i do my mission,i get so pissed at people that listeen to media and whatnot and believe it,and the soldiers that want to put there political views in front of there duty.Its gettin old...O and to top it off im a reserveist and im proud to have served and if i go back ill be just as proud.cause ive seen the result of what we have done.the schoools,hospitals,power,and freedom of the iraqi people.......So how about i start a thread 10,000 reasons to f in hate people that really dont know WTF there talkin about

[kernel crash]

"So how about i start a thread 10,000 reasons to f in hate people that really dont know WTF there talkin about"

Good to hear from somebody that has a real opinion based on real facts. Thanks for your service soldier. God bless you.

[MTBME]

"Good to hear from somebody that has a real opinion based on real facts. Thanks for your service soldier. God bless you."

Same here. I have a nephew that just arrived in Mosul with the striker company. I'm sure he'll have some real interesting insight.

[Mr_Cheeze]

where you there??? i know i was from march of 2003 till dec 2003.I didnt have body armor i had flak jackets.didnt m,atter cause we didnt wear them.we havnt had ANY bulletproof vests in our military history.Our hummvee's didnt have door(we took em off so we coiuld be aware of our surroundings.with armor u cant see,shoot or realizing what the hell is goin on)The company that protested and wouldnt run missions all should have been courtmarshelled and threw in jail.what am i gonna refuse to do something cause i dont like the situation.....no way.i signed up i obey my orders and i do my mission,i get so pissed at people that listeen to media and whatnot and believe it,and the soldiers that want to put there political views in front of there duty.Its gettin old...O and to top it off im a reserveist and im proud to have served and if i go back ill be just as proud.cause ive seen the result of what we have done.the schoools,hospitals,power,and freedom of the iraqi people.......So how about i start a thread 10,000 reasons to f in hate people that really dont know WTF there talkin about

I think you are making the same mistake and assumptions that many servicemen make upon seeing criticism of the war and/or our President. None of this... and this is important for you to understand... none of this means that those serving our country are being criticized. That couldn't be further from the truth. While many comparisons have been made to Vietnam, one big difference is the attitude toward our troops. Those guys were openly scorned upon their return from duty. I don't think you can even begin to make such a claim. These criticisms of the war are not only justified, but important. You are just doing your job. Defend your order givers. Never undermine your COC. I can understand that. But one does not have to have been "over there" to see the simple, stark, and devastating numbers. Over 2000 US lives lost, and 15,000 wounded... and for what? Meantime, Afghanistan is getting out of control again. Famine is spreading while the heroin trade is proliferating. These things are undeniable truths on which judgement is justifiable. Saying that criticizing the war is giving aid and comfort to the enemy is outright propaganda. Maybe you're not suggesting that, but others in your position certainly have.

I don't blame you for sticking up for your compadres. And I understand it. But please don't think that we're undermining the effort. I'm of the position that you guys have never been allowed to actually wage a war to win out because of politics and other regional factors. Put aside, for the moment, the arguments for and against ever having gone into Iraq. I think even you can admit that, once it was decided that this was going to get done, that there was so much more that could and should have been done. But like Vietnam, politics turned what should have been a winnable war into a struggle.

[Slappy]

Thanks for your service ODB - it's appreciated.

You should listen to Slider tho - he knows better than anyone about anything and if you forget that, he'll remind you repeatedly.

[orangediamback]

ok thats the other thing thisa should NEVER be compared to Vietnam.60,000 plus died in nam.2,000 in iraq.every lose of life is tragic and horrible but compare numbers real quick.You dont have to be a math geniouse.second vietnam was wwaaayyyyyy political and done all wrong.you would not want to see what we could do if they(bush,politicians ect...)would let us do our job all out complete.it would be a mass graveyard.we have weapons that we have never used because of there shere strength.could you imagine what would have happened if we went into iraq and just went all out on them.there would have been like 100k dead iraqi's.now on the other hand we are goin in and tryin to dignify the difference between enemy and terrorist.which is one hell of a job.cause if your wrong u killed a inncoent person or incarcereated.or u let a terrorist go that could one day kill masses of people.So it takes time..information...and partience(something citizens have none of).its not goin to take a certain amount of time to get rid of them all and leave iraq..THEN it would be a vietnam....when u go somewhere with a mission.you FINISH your mission.........sorry for the long banter

[Slider]

where you there??? i know i was from march of 2003 till dec 2003.I didnt have body armor i had flak jackets.didnt m,atter cause we didnt wear them.we havnt had ANY bulletproof vests in our military history.Our hummvee's didnt have door(we took em off so we coiuld be aware of our surroundings.with armor u cant see,shoot or realizing what the hell is goin on)The company that protested and wouldnt run missions all should have been courtmarshelled and threw in jail.what am i gonna refuse to do something cause i dont like the situation.....no way.i signed up i obey my orders and i do my mission,i get so pissed at people that listeen to media and whatnot and believe it,and the soldiers that want to put there political views in front of there duty.Its gettin old...O and to top it off im a reserveist and im proud to have served and if i go back ill be just as proud.cause ive seen the result of what we have done.the schoools,hospitals,power,and freedom of the iraqi people.......So how about i start a thread 10,000 reasons to f in hate people that really dont know WTF there talkin about

You sound like a good, loyal soldier, ready to take orders and die for country. Good for you. We need grunts to do the dirty work, whether it makes any sense at all or not. Better having you there than making policy anywhere, because you clearly don't know WTF you're talking about. You have just the kind of blind loyalty needed to fight an idiotic war.

Slider

[Slappy]

See...I told ya! Charming little fella ain't he?

[TrailBate]

where you there??? i know i was from march of 2003 till dec 2003.I didnt have body armor i had flak jackets.didnt m,atter cause we didnt wear them.we havnt had ANY bulletproof vests in our military history.Our hummvee's didnt have door(we took em off so we coiuld be aware of our surroundings.with armor u cant see,shoot or realizing what the hell is goin on)The company that protested and wouldnt run missions all should have been courtmarshelled and threw in jail.what am i gonna refuse to do something cause i dont like the situation.....no way.i signed up i obey my orders and i do my mission,i get so pissed at people that listeen to media and whatnot and believe it,and the soldiers that want to put there political views in front of there duty.Its gettin old...O and to top it off im a reserveist and im proud to have served and if i go back ill be just as proud.cause ive seen the result of what we have done.the schoools,hospitals,power,and freedom of the iraqi people.......So how about i start a thread 10,000 reasons to f in hate people that really dont know WTF there talkin about

I agree with cheeze. There is nobody I respect more than people in the military, which is why I get so pissed when our servicemen are dying for no reason. American lives are being wasted. They're dying to find the wmd's and al qaida connections that never existed, and that Bush and CO. knew did not exist. How you feel about your service will never change that.

[orangediamback]

wow...blind huh.....i think you might be the one being blinded.i was very pissed when i got deployed only cause i didnt agree with goin over there but when I got there it was a whole different story.the murdering.raping torture(and not the pansy ass **** that cnn says we do..that is FAR from torture)and the abuse of his people.something the people of the USA will never be abe to imagine cause YOU werent there...O ya I was....who is blind and who has seen the truth...they might not have WMD...who to say he didnt move them to syria...iran...anywhere....cause its so hard to move stuff,because the media didnt see anything they claim it was never there.suuuuure...thats why saddam gassed is own people.have you EVERseen what that **** does(CS gas,mustard gas)i was shittin myslef when we were basically living in a gas mask and suit PLUS our BDU(uniforms)..O ya it was about 115 degree's.......blind..wow....i think sir you might be just plain ignorent

[kernel crash]

"Better having you there than making policy anywhere, because you clearly don't know WTF you're talking about. You have just the kind of blind loyalty needed to fight an idiotic war.

Slider"

Not only is that insulting but it shows the arrogance of Slider. Your not smart enought to make policy, say like a John Kerry, but you make good cannon fodder because you don't see things the way Slider does. I think I'll refer to Slider from now on as Slimy. Yeah. That sounds about right.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I really don't mean to defend Slider here, because the last thing I want to do is make it look like I agree with his venomous attitude towards the military. But I think by "blind" he means blind to the politics behind the war. What he doesn't understand, because he chooses to be willfully blind to the operations side of things... is that your point of view is what it must be for any member of the military. I would certainly hope that you could give two sh*ts about politics. It's the last distraction the guys in the trenches ever need.

But it is the poltical side of this argument where the camparisons to Vietnam take hold. Not the casualty side... not yet... given time, maybe. You pretty much confirmed what I was saying earlier, orange, when you said how scary it would be if they allowed you guys to use your full offensive capabilities. Indeed, I never doubted that to be the case. But Vietnam was lost because politicians thought it would be better to have a protracted conflict for whatever reasons, but at the expense of soldiers' lives. You may have bought into the various reasons for entering into Iraq, but here is where this debate truly stands. What is the real purpose behind this war. Because I don't believe for a second that there ever were WMD. But there was and is oil. And there was and is lots of space for the US to have a permanent military presence in the middle east. Exporting Democracy? Please. It sounds good, which is why it's repeated ad nauseum. But it's just another part of the morphing list of reasons for having entered into this foray.

[Slider]

wow...blind huh.....i think you might be the one being blinded.i was very pissed when i got deployed only cause i didnt agree with goin over there but when I got there it was a whole different story.the murdering.raping torture(and not the pansy ass **** that cnn says we do..that is FAR from torture)and the abuse of his people.something the people of the USA will never be abe to imagine cause YOU werent there...O ya I was....who is blind and who has seen the truth...they might not have WMD...who to say he didnt move them to syria...iran...anywhere....cause its so hard to move stuff,because the media didnt see anything they claim it was never there.suuuuure...thats why saddam gassed is own people.have you EVERseen what that **** does(CS gas,mustard gas)i was shittin myslef when we were basically living in a gas mask and suit PLUS our BDU(uniforms)..O ya it was about 115 degree's.......blind..wow....i think sir you might be just plain ignorent

Our preparedness, troop loyalty, weapon strength and all the rest have nothing to do with the idiocy of the policy that put us in Iraq. You may NEED to blind yourself to that fact in order to fulfill your commitment to serve. More power to you, if that is what it takes. But your ability to discuss policy is clearly tainted by the internal mechanisms that are needed to play the role you've chosen for yourself.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Our preparedness, troop loyalty, weapon strength and all the rest have nothing to do with the idiocy of the policy that put us in Iraq. You may NEED to blind yourself to that fact in order to fulfill your commitment to serve. More power to you, if that is what it takes. But your ability to discuss policy is clearly tainted by the internal mechanisms that are needed to play the role you've chosen for yourself.

Slider

And knowing that this was obviously the case from the start, exactly what purpose did it then serve to conduct an ad hominem attack? Does it make you feel better to tear him down to make a point?

[orangediamback]

hey nothing could ever tear me down.i look at what IIIIIIIII see not what other people tell me.

its ok i have a mind of my own...not of someone else

[orangediamback]

tooo bad iraqi oil cant be used.......hmmm maybe that why my company brought all of the petroleum product used in the war from kuwait....

so oil cant be why we are there(its about as usefull as water would be, no refining at all the stuff is useless........hey maybe bush id goin to iraq a huge idustry that he would be in charge of...LOL

[Slider]

I didn't attack anybody. If you're talking about the blind loyalty thing, he said it himself.

Slider


where you there??? i know i was from march of 2003 till dec 2003.i signed up i obey my orders and i do my mission,i get so pissed at people that listeen to media and whatnot and believe it,and the soldiers that want to put there political views in front of there duty.Its gettin old...

[orangediamback]

Blind loyalty....lol.....man this is fun

because i do what i am supposed to do.i am blind,if the order hurts or incriminates people i have the right under UCMJ not to obey that order.....i guess im blind to do the job i said i would do..hmm

[Mr_Cheeze]

hey nothing could ever tear me down.i look at what IIIIIIIII see not what other people tell me.

its ok i have a mind of my own...not of someone else

Didn't mean to imply otherwise.

[orangediamback]

not you....lol.....

[Slappy]

Hey Slider - you forgot to baselessly label him a racist while you were at it!

You're slipping, man...slipping...

[Mr_Cheeze]

Not really. Slider's position towards the military in disagreeable conflicts goes way back. I remember a like thread in the past where he forwarded a similarly bitter attitude towards the troops. As if they have only themselves to blame for any miseries of war, and regardless of the politics that drives it. It's simply not good enough that these guys are trained to follow orders. I guess they're supposed to discern when and where their missions qualify as humanitarian. Otherwise they're doing a disservice.

I don't really understand what he hopes to gain from spouting such venom. But at least he's consistent. God forbid such a stark liberal should ever pay homage to those who fight for his freedom, even if it's in a war or for a President he despises.

[Slider]

You guys crack me up. I say one thing, and it gets remanufactured into whatever you care to make it.

The guy says he follows orders, I say that kind of thing is useful for troops but useless in making policy, and now I am hostile to the military.

I don't know if the problem is poor reading comprehension or bias, but you really should read what I post a lot more closely.

Slider

[Slappy]

You guys crack me up. I say one thing, and it gets remanufactured into whatever you care to make it.


:har::har::har::har:

OOOOOAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!! BAAAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

OH THE FARKING IRONY!!!
YER KILLIN MEEE!!!!


So who gave you the order to avoid doing anything concrete about your oh-so-strongly held views and instead just sit and rant impotently into mtb cyberspace about them? Or did you come up with that directive all by yourself Mr Action?

[Slider]

All evidence would suggest a comprehension problem at this point.

Slider

[Slappy]

YOU SIR ARE A RACIST!!!!

:soapbox:

[Slider]

We have confirmation....

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Let's go back and rehash the "misunderstood" post, shall we?


You sound like a good, loyal soldier, ready to take orders and die for country. Good for you. We need grunts to do the dirty work, whether it makes any sense at all or not. Better having you there than making policy anywhere, because you clearly don't know WTF you're talking about. You have just the kind of blind loyalty needed to fight an idiotic war.

Slider

Hmm. I don't know. Seems pretty hostile to me. Hostile in a venomously sarcastic sort of way, yes, but hostile nonetheless. Explain exactly how this is not an ad hominem attack.

[kernel crash]

"You sound like a good, loyal soldier, ready to take orders and die for country. Good for you. We need grunts to do the dirty work, whether it makes any sense at all or not. Better having you there than making policy anywhere, because you clearly don't know WTF you're talking about. You have just the kind of blind loyalty needed to fight an idiotic war.

Slider"

Look again at your original post.
He's a "grunt" doing the dirty work.
You could have said he's a patriot willing to die for his country.

"whether it makes any sense at all or not"
Why did you have to throw this in. It might make sense to an awful lot of people.

"Better having you there than making policy anywhere"
Sounds like your saying he's too stupid to be making policy but he's smart enough to stop a bullet. Did you sa that about John Kerry? Of course not because he shares your liberal views.

"you clearly don't know WTF you're talking about"
Thats a BOLD statement to say to someone that has been to IRAQ and has an opinion, based on his experiences, that differs from yours. Again if he doesn't agree with you hes a stupid grunt that doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Slider]

The first question would have to be "Who's attacking whom?"

Here's the close of the first post by the fellow in question:

"So how about i start a thread 10,000 reasons to f in hate people that really dont know WTF there talkin about"

Now, that did set the tone for whatever followed, yes? But beyond that, I don't see any attack, other than the echo of what was first tossed my way.

His post is about dedication to duty, presented as if it has bearing on the policy that created the duty. It ain't connected, other than the fact that grunts (a term a Marine will proudly use to describe himself) are needed to enforce the bad Bush decisions. I don't hold his dedication against him until he implies that it means he knows more about it that anyone else who cares to consider the situation. When that happened, I just tossed back his way what he gave to me.

Slider

[TrailBate]

wow...blind huh.....i think you might be the one being blinded.i was very pissed when i got deployed only cause i didnt agree with goin over there but when I got there it was a whole different story.the murdering.raping torture(and not the pansy ass **** that cnn says we do..that is FAR from torture)and the abuse of his people.something the people of the USA will never be abe to imagine cause YOU werent there...O ya I was....who is blind and who has seen the truth...they might not have WMD...who to say he didnt move them to syria...iran...anywhere....cause its so hard to move stuff,because the media didnt see anything they claim it was never there.suuuuure...thats why saddam gassed is own people.have you EVERseen what that **** does(CS gas,mustard gas)i was shittin myslef when we were basically living in a gas mask and suit PLUS our BDU(uniforms)..O ya it was about 115 degree's.......blind..wow....i think sir you might be just plain ignorent

It wasn't just the media that said the WMD's were never there. Bush's own government said it, along with many other investigations and commissions. Yes, he gassed his own people. in 1986, fer chrissakes! Reagan was president. What did he do when he heard about it? Nothing, except to give Saddam the intelligence info he needed to gas the Iranians. The fact is, Saddam's WMD programs were non-existent after the first gulf war. That is a fact. Just because you were in Iraq, doesn't turn Bush's lies into truth. I'm sure things did suck under Saddam. They seem to suck now, too. Bravo, Bush. Bravo.

[off piste]

We have confirmation....

Slider

It's good to see someone got you guys talking again. I was a little worried about your silence:

http://www.fiba-filmbank.org/dev/fiba_2004/hearts&minds/monk.jpg

[orangediamback]

thats what i like to see...discusion

thats what makes the world go round.another reason i jioned the military to make sure our fredoms are never taken away...especially the freedom of speech

[Mr_Cheeze]

That's it! I'm calling the...
http://morningglory2.wordpress.com/files/2006/03/grammarpolice.jpg

[orangediamback]

lol.....i hate spelling.....not needed if u know what im talkin about....lol

[Slider]

The biggest threat we face to freedom of speech, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, is "W" himself. Nothing like a little illegal wiretapping to dampen free speech. Toss in meddling with information from research by NOAA, the FDA, the EPA, and other government agencies set up to protect us, and all we're left with is a Karl Rove view of the world.

Horse is outta the barn on that one.

Slider

[orangediamback]

OMG......this guy

holy conspercy theorist.....

[kernel crash]

"The biggest threat we face to freedom of speech, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, is "W" himself."

Seems to me your having no problem with "Freedom of Speech". When you end up on a water board, then I'll start to worry. By the way, you do realize that "W" will be history in a few short years. I suspect this country will still be recognizable to the rest of us.

[Mr_Cheeze]

"The biggest threat we face to freedom of speech, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, is "W" himself."

Seems to me your having no problem with "Freedom of Speech". When you end up on a water board, then I'll start to worry. By the way, you do realize that "W" will be history in a few short years. I suspect this country will still be recognizable to the rest of us.

You just hit on the real funny part in all of his and his liberal comrades exaggerated outrage. All of this talk about fascism and erosion of the Constitution. Yet, here we all are, saying whatever the **** we want about George Bush and Dick Cheney, etc. I'm on their side about this Iraq debacle, but that's it. I get lost when the sky is falling.

He'll be posting shortly now, expressing how we're all not getting it, yada, yada. Been there, done that. And it's Orange's fault for bringing back around this vicious circle of endless tiresome rhetoric!

BTW, you do realize that in 2008, the Republicans are going to fix the election with their corrupt Diebold voting machines, right? Just so long as you realize that beforehand. Of course, if a Democrat wins, they'll have done it legitimately.

[Slider]

All the things I cited as examples are actually happening. Rhetoric is all the crap posted in an attempt at discrediting those facts. Not opinion, not imagined, FACTS.

As for water boards - that is exactly the kind of thing Bush is trying to legalize, and not just overeseas. There are no protections in the Bush detainment bill for US citizens or specific forms of torture. You don't get it, but your own asses are on the line.

It is a huge threat no matter how much denial you choose to wallow in.

Slider

[kernel crash]

"BTW, you do realize that in 2008, the Republicans are going to fix the election with their corrupt Diebold voting machines, right? Just so long as you realize that beforehand. Of course, if a Democrat wins, they'll have done it legitimately."

Speaking of elections, I have mixed feelings about the upcoming elections. On the local level unless Kerry Healey can debate Patrick one on one, I think its all over. The current format allows the Christy Mihos to throw bombs at Healey. Patrick just has to sit back and keep his mouth shut. And speaking of keeping his mouth shut, I haven't heard him give any specifics on anything. He speaks very well but he isn't saying anything. People are eating it up. Looks like were screwed. On the federal level I dont like one party holding all the power. So... does that mean I want the Democrats to gain control of the house? How productive would that be? Maybe its better if the GOP holds the house by 1 seat.

[TrailBate]

"The biggest threat we face to freedom of speech, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, is "W" himself."

Seems to me your having no problem with "Freedom of Speech". When you end up on a water board, then I'll start to worry. By the way, you do realize that "W" will be history in a few short years. I suspect this country will still be recognizable to the rest of us.

Unfortunately, the damage W is causing will be felt for generations to come. From the environment he's poisoning, the forests he's selling, the new terrorists he is creating, the Constitution he's destroying, and this huge debt that YOU will eventually have to pay back, it will take many many many more than a "few short years" to fix everything.

[off piste]

I know what I'm going to do to stop all this. Next election, I'm just going to vote for everyone with a (D) next to their name. Things'll be set right then:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10704025/

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060129/060129_ven_hmed_1p.hmedium.jpg

[catbbq]

I think we can take some advice from Chavez.

'Hugo Chavez, an arm around Sheehan’s shoulders, told a group of activists that she had told him “she is going to put up her tent again in front of Mr. Danger’s ranch” in April.'

"Mr. Danger" should be the honorary title bestowed upon every U.S. President going forward. Hell, if it is, I might run.

President Cat "Mr. Danger" BBQ

[orangediamback]

that lady is a disgrace to her son,poor guy didnt even have a grave stone...but hey she took all his slgi(life insurance)and slurged on everything.she offers nothing but complaints and no idea's.typical liberal

[kernel crash]

"Unfortunately, the damage W is causing will be felt for generations to come. From the environment he's poisoning, the forests he's selling,"

Actually developing countries like China and India are doing far more damage to the environment than W. But you don't mention that do you.

[Slider]

China's population is more than four times that of the US, yet they contribute maybe 25% more CO2 to the atmosphere than we do. On a per-capita basis, the US easily dwarfs any other country from a pollution-generation perspective.

Bush's environmental policy has a direct effect on the amount of pollution we create, and there's no going back no matter what policies we introduce when we DON'T have a moron in the White House.

Slider

[Slappy]

Cool, since there's no going back we can all stop worrying about it now.
I'm going shopping for a new Suburban!

[Mr_Cheeze]

China's population is more than four times that of the US, yet they contribute maybe 25% more CO2 to the atmosphere than we do. On a per-capita basis, the US easily dwarfs any other country from a pollution-generation perspective.

Bush's environmental policy has a direct effect on the amount of pollution we create, and there's no going back no matter what policies we introduce when we DON'T have a moron in the White House.

Slider

Really? So Bush policy is the reason why American people have more cars and, since they have them, they usually drive places in them, and that too many Americans drive vehicles larger than they need? I did not know that was Bush's fault. I learned something.

Oh wait, maybe his policy is the reason that the average American citizen exhales 4 times the amount of CO2 that of the average Chinese. Much of this is the spewing of hot air by liberals, of course. And the Chinese... they can't spew, being oppressed and all, and with such small mouths. It's all so logical.

Or is it the trees? Perhaps American trees use only 1/4 that of Chinese trees. Stupid pro-Bush American trees!

[orangediamback]

Lol.......^

[Slider]

What part of the connection betwen policy and the real world don't you understand? You think maybe cause and effect doesn't apply?

Thinking about it, that would help explain why you don't seem to get the connection between the erosion of the Bill of Rights and the threat it poses to our personal liberty. Policy doesn't matter at all. The world will be what it will be, regardless.

Don't infants grow past that stage within, like, minutes? It seems clear we're really just talking about some seriously arrested development, and the Rove/Bush tag team has learned to capitalize on it.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

What part of the connection betwen policy and the real world don't you understand? You think maybe cause and effect doesn't apply?

Slider

Ok, what cause and effect, then, Mr. Everything-Is-Bush's-Fault? Be very specific. What George Bush policy has resulted in any substantial increase of CO2 into our atmosphere that you can say, beyond any shadow of a doubt, would be any different than, if those policies were set otherwise? Putting aside the sarcasm laden in my last post, tell me how George Bush policy can account for the US having more automobiles on the road than any other country in the world? And then, after you agree with me that that isn't actually his fault, tell me how it's his fault that Americans are addicted to wasting energy with all of their consumer electronics and appliances, and such?

Policy schmolicy. We are our own worst enemies concerning environmental problems. You can condemn the President for not supporting cleaner air and water, but don't tell me that his policy has a direct effect on any significant environmental consequence, and then make some vague connection to other unrelated issue, like homeland security. One has nothing to do with the other.

I know you think it's necessary to keep piling on, but it gets to the point where you get buried under your own faulty logic with this constant need to place the blame of every societal ill upon the guy you hate. We all get the friggin point already.

[Slider]

Let's start with the gutting of the Clean Air Act, stripping protections from wetlands and removing any teeth that would stop the huge volumes of all kinds of pollution from the largely mid-western factories. Their spew mostly falls right here in New England, and is killing our lakes and rivers. The CO2 is more democratic, and is equally harming us all.

Next we can talk about a similar gutting of the Endangered Species act, which was an important tool for all kinds of environmental enforcement. Bush had the balls to call his elimination of curtails on mercury pollution sources the "Clear Skies" initiative.

Under Bush, we've halved the cleanup effort at Superfund sites, and enforcement of ongoing violators has dropped significantly. The EPA says that lawsuits against polluters have declined by 75%. Just so you get the picture, it isn't because they stopped polluting.

These are just a few examples. There are lots more, but it is really about the complete inattention to proactive environmental effrort that is Bush's biggest legacy. He is fiddling while the US burns in a toxic inferno.

So tell me gutting the Clean Air act and reducing enforcement doesn't directly affect us all. The idea that Bush shouldn't be held responsible is just plain stupid. If you can't connect the dots, that's your problem, not mine.

Slider

[catbbq]

China's population is more than four times that of the US, yet they contribute maybe 25% more CO2 to the atmosphere than we do. On a per-capita basis, the US easily dwarfs any other country from a pollution-generation perspective.

Bush's environmental policy has a direct effect on the amount of pollution we create, and there's no going back no matter what policies we introduce when we DON'T have a moron in the White House.

Slider

Are you concerned with per capita polution? Seems the environment doesn't care how many people generated the CO2, just that fact that there is CO2.

Perhaps it is Bush's fault there aren't more people in the US. After all, compared to China and India, we are dangerously under populated. If we could double or triple the amount of people in the US,through illegal immigration, it would cut our per capita polution way down. Everyone knows illegal immigrants can't afford cars or electricity.

[Slider]

Can't argue with that "logic."

Slider

[TrailBate]

Clinton did a lot in his presidency to help protect the environment. Some of the first things Bush did when he became president (before he went on vacation and ignored 9/11), was to reverse much of what Clinton did.

Oh, and to whoever was clever enough to post a picture of whats-her-name with Chavez, don't forget it's Rumsfeld that has that great picture of himself shaking hands with Saddam.

[Mr_Cheeze]

If you can't connect the dots, that's your problem, not mine.

Slider

No, you see it is your problem. You suggest direct correlation between hard, fast numbers, like China only producing 25% more CO2 "than we do", and Bush policy. Unforutnately for you, the "dots" connect only so far as those things that George Bush has no control over, like automobiles and energy usage. These policies, while I agree he should be held accountable for, are not directly causing our environment to go to sh*t in a snap, as you imply. Not in a mere 8 years. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

[Slider]

Since you are the only one who has said Bush's idiocy has trashed the world in a "snap", then you ought to connect those dots yourself. What I said, clearly and with specific examples, is that Bush's policies are damaging to the environment, to a degree that would border on criminal negligeence, if only there was an world environmental court to hold him accountable.

But if SUVs and other conspicuous energy consumption is really the problem, shouldn't he draft legislation to address those? You talk about them as if they're some sort of runaway train. Well, if they are, Bush is the only brakeman that can slow it down, but instead he's spent his time ripping out the hydraulics, pads, rotors and all the other parts that were in place beforehand.

Policy -> real world effect. That is how it works.

Slider

[FriedRys]

But if SUVs and other conspicuous energy consumption is really the problem, shouldn't he draft legislation to address those? You talk about them as if they're some sort of runaway train. Well, if they are, Bush is the only brakeman that can slow it down, but instead he's spent his time ripping out the hydraulics, pads, rotors and all the other parts that were in place beforehand.

Policy -> real world effect. That is how it works.

SliderThat would be great, Bush comes up with legislation limiting the amount of energy people use and what kind of car they drive and instead of hailing it as an enviromentally sound decision, you get up on your keyboard and scream for all the people on this forum to hear that George Bush is using the Bill of Rights to light a cigar and his newwest legislation limiting energy use and what kind of vehicle you can drive is proof of his facist intent. Face it guy's, it really doesn't matter what he does, bring home every troop in the world tomorrow, enact the most extreme enviromental policies, fix imigration, social security, health care, it wouldn't matter, you would still find something to bitch about.

[kernel crash]

"Bush is the only brakeman that can slow it down,"

Really. So now the president is suppose to be making policy. What up with the Democrats in Congress to put together legislation to clean up this big mess you refer to? Seems there's not a lot of urgency to address this is there.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Since you are the only one who has said Bush's idiocy has trashed the world in a "snap", then you ought to connect those dots yourself. What I said, clearly and with specific examples, is that Bush's policies are damaging to the environment, to a degree that would border on criminal negligeence, if only there was an world environmental court to hold him accountable.

Slider

What you said was nothing concrete. Just rhetoric with a blame-everything-on-Bush agenda. Your "specific" examples provide proof of nothing other than policy change. Show me something that proves a significant increase in environmental consequences since Bush took office. You can't. All you can say is, Bush policy will have dire consequences. Cause and effect. Cause and effect. Hey, it's cause and effect, stupid! No, the only stupidity is the suggestion that massive hurricanes are the fault of George Bush policy change, because that's exactly what you're saying in essense.

Yea, speaking of which, the environment must have fixed itself in just one year. Very mild hurricane season. Perhaps George Bush is to be PRAISED!! Yea, I know. He just got lucky this year. Wait til next year, dammit!

[Mr_Cheeze]

That would be great, Bush comes up with legislation limiting the amount of energy people use and what kind of car they drive and instead of hailing it as an enviromentally sound decision, you get up on your keyboard and scream for all the people on this forum to hear that George Bush is using the Bill of Rights to light a cigar and his newwest legislation limiting energy use and what kind of vehicle you can drive is proof of his facist intent. Face it guy's, it really doesn't matter what he does, bring home every troop in the world tomorrow, enact the most extreme enviromental policies, fix imigration...

Stop right there. He fixed immigration? That racist!!!!!!

[Slider]

Never said nothjing about banning SUVs, or limits on energy consumption. That was conservative hysteria talking, in an attempt to drown our real world ideas.

As for whether the President can make poliicy, you should have got your civics in high school, or at least read the political coverage, even Fox would do, over the last five years or so. Since you've clearly not noticed, the balance of power is a little, um, unbalanced.

There are many, many ways to rein in pollutants. Instead of exploring them, Bush is gutting the most effective controls we have in place. It is so obvious, that your attempted arguments to the contrary look kinda desperate.

Slider

[catbbq]

But if SUVs and other conspicuous energy consumption is really the problem, shouldn't he draft legislation to address those?
Slider

Is it the president's job to draft legislation? I thought that what we had congress for.

[off piste]

Apparently, this is what we have Comgress for:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-10-02T044702Z_01_N01292632_RTRUKOC_0_US-FOLEY.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C3-politicsNews-3

Isn't this the Catholic Church's turf?

[kernel crash]

"your attempted arguments to the contrary look kinda desperate. "

Hey I'll be the first to step up and say that Bush's record here, hasn't been one of pro activity. Maybe thats because there's room for debate and not all agree on whats really going on. Or maybe he's distracted with more important things right now like Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Bob Woodward...

[Slider]

There's no debate about whether pollution is bad or not. There's not even a real debate about global warming, just a pseudo-debate, fueled with disinformation from the Bush camp.

As for Bush having his hands full, it is ironic that you offer that as an excuse. Besides the fact that he certainly had a few years before he got us into a disaster of a war to address the serious environmental issues we and the rest of the world are facing, the reason he's now forced to deal with N Korea, Iran, and Syria from a position of weakness is due to that very same war.

Seems like the Iraq war has screwed a lot more people than just the Iraqis.

Slider

[kernel crash]

"Besides the fact that he certainly had a few years before he got us into a disaster of a war to address the serious environmental issues we and the rest of the world are facing,"

Hmmm. Actually 9/11 happened 8 months into his administration. I would say that priorities changed on that day. Lets see global warming, global terrorism, global warming, global terrorism. Seems like a no brainer to me.

[Slider]

OK, 9/11 took some attention. WTF did we go into Iraq if that is the case?

Remember, Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, so you're really just citing more evidence of Bush's incompetence. And, meanwhile, the environment suffers.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Saying Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 at this point in time makes you look like a genius. But how many were saying that BEFORE we went into Iraq? So I think we all need to move on from the "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11". We need to deal with the facts on hand and pull together to find a successful ending to all of this.

[Slider]

It is so absolutely clear that Bush engineered the facts to support the Iraq invasion that is is absurd to even try to argue otherwise. The CIA says so, Richard Clarke (THE terrorism expert for four consecutive administrations) says so, the Downing Street memo says so, and there are a lot more who have said so, publicly. Even the Senators who supported the invasion did so on Bush's manufactured "evidence" of WMDs, etc in Iraq. Give it up, really. Or at least try reading the effing news.

So Iraq is 100% Bush's baby, and you are right. Iraq is the reason we as a country are ineffectual in the world arena, and losing ground by the day.

Slider

[orangediamback]

LOL....too much

[Rych]

Iraq is the reason we as a country are ineffectual in the world arena, and losing ground by the day.

Slider

Ineffectual in what way?

[Slider]

Leseee....We invaded Iraq ostensibly because the WMDs were such a threat. So now, with us overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have two far bigger threats in North Korea and Iran more than just talking nukes. We have China practically laughing at us publicly as we make statements about Taiwan or the balance of trade. Chavez gets applause as he calls Bush the Devil, after he nationalized the oil industry in his country. Even the Brits, as good an ally as we're ever likely to have, poll overwhelmingly Anti-American now, on virtually all issues.

Where are we NOT ineffectual?

Slider

[orangediamback]

wow...too many people worry about what other people think of us..

[orangediamback]

And we didnt invade Iraq.......but i know you will have alot to say about that so.....im ready

[Mr_Cheeze]

Well, if it wasn't an invasion, how would you characterize it? Perhaps a better question is, do you still believe that the real reason we entered Iraq was to find WMD? So then it was a "disarmament"? Even if you believe that, it still qualifies as an invasion of a sovereign nation. Knowing everything we know right now, I am not sure how you could still possibly still believe that the whole WMD scenario was not cooked up. Not to mention that the whole Iraq - 9/11 connection has yet to be proven beyond all doubt. I realize that you were there, and saw things from different perspectives. But you also have to be realistic in knowing that everything you were fed came down from the top. Bush, and more importantly, Cheney and Rumsfeld had a hardon for Iraq and Saddam from day 1. You had no choice but to buy into the program.

Check out this Frontline report. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/
Now don't you think that perhaps we should have never diverted troops away from Afghanistan, and instead of wasting good men, and lots of resources in Iraq, that maybe we would have been better served to station armies on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border? These Taliban are the real enemy... and Pakistan seems to be nothing more than enablers of extreme Islamic fundamentalism, since they refuse to do anything about what pretty much everybody knows, that Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda high-ups are hiding somewhere around North-northwest Pakistan.

[Slider]

wow...too many people worry about what other people think of us..

Only someone with no idea of how international relations work would say something like that. Were you quoting Bush?

And you can't possibly believe that we didn't invade Iraq. I'm really interested to hear the Orwellian contortion that could get you there.

Slider

[orangediamback]

i think its not,my opinion......you have yours,i dont have to explain why...its just my thought


are you a international relations worker?seriously

[Slider]

I thought when you posted "I'm ready" it meant you'd explain further.

I am a domestic sales worker, seriously. ;-)

But it doesn't take a pro to see that the military approach simply isn't working for us. Not in Afghanistan, though it could have if done with some intelligence. Iraq is another story. We're doomed to fail there, since we had no real reason to invade, no pre-set goals, no exit strategy, minimal international help, and a completely misguided sense of how our efforts would be received.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

i think its not,my opinion......you have yours,i dont have to explain why...its just my thought


are you a international relations worker?seriously

Well, if not an invasion then what? It certainly wasn't a humanitarian mission. It wasn't a coup... although it sort of ended up that way. We weren't invited in. So what else could it have been?

[orangediamback]

the difference is what the military see's an invasion...
civilian's and the military see 2 different views of an invasion
D-day(invasion)
an invasion would have mass loss of life/buildings/supply's/everything

o and slider thats sounds like a cool job.i guess i could say im a international worker..lol..

its so much the military approach isnt working .its more the people in charge or the military(not bush..lol)i mean generals...ect.when i was there i saw more people that LOVED us,then hated us.Mind you i wasnt ALL over the country,just baghdad and below(nasiriya,al hilla..ect)ya there is a group that dosnt like us.but couldnt that be the equivlent of the germans and nazi's? just a thought

[Rych]

I'm one of the right wing nuts on this board, and I would call it an invasion.

[kernel crash]

"Well, if not an invasion then what?"

Ahh that's easy. It was a LIBERATION. But alas, those poor bastards wern't ready for being liberated. You see they were living under the boot of Sadam and his two sons for so long, they forgot how to stand up for themselves. So now they nervously shuffle their feet around, looking at the ground, wondering what their next move is. But the death squads have gotten such a foothold, that nobody wants to stick their necks out, literally, to take a stand. After all you never know who might be watching. Meanwhile those like al-sada (sic) see their stock on the rise. We should have killed him a long time ago.

[Mr_Cheeze]

It really wasn't a liberation, though. Not originally. You have to go back to the onset of the incursion... to supposedly find WMD. When that didn't materialize, the coup was plan B.

[TrailBate]

I think Kernel and Orangediamback are reading from the NeoCon dictionary.
every definition ends with "9/11"

[off piste]

Hmmmm. Strange. I couldn't find one single reference to 9/11 anywhere in this thread by Orangediamonback.

[orangediamback]

ok so let me guess you guys want to pull all the troops out of iraq huh....lol......



and no i havnt made any comments about any connection to 9/11..i dont think it is directly

[Mr_Cheeze]

Realistically, no, we can't just pull out right now. Only an insanely stupid person would seriously think that can be done. However, I think Bush is full of doodie when he says that we can't place a timetable on one. Say, 2 years? The real reason he won't do it is because he has no plans on pulling out whatsoever. He wants a permanent presence there. So you tell me why that would be if not for oil and Israel. Not necessarily Iraqi oil, but Middle East oil, in general.

[orangediamback]

maybe it is......hey we are still in south korea,germany,japan....we never leave..lol

[TrailBate]

So let's see...
N Korea now has a nuke, and continues to test missiles. Iran is threatening to wipe Israel off the map. Iraq continues to collapse, with 25 American soldiers dead so far this month. The Iraq occupation is causing terrorism to spread. Republicans are busy covering up illegal homosexual affairs with underage boys......why is it that all these conservative, anti-gay organizations (Catholic church) seem to be so full of gay perverts?
What have republicans accomplished the past 6 years? Wiretapping and torture?

Bravo, Bush. Bravo.

[catbbq]

So let's see...
N Korea now has a nuke, and continues to test missiles. Iran is threatening to wipe Israel off the map. Iraq continues to collapse, with 25 American soldiers dead so far this month. The Iraq occupation is causing terrorism to spread. Republicans are busy covering up illegal homosexual affairs with underage boys......why is it that all these conservative, anti-gay organizations (Catholic church) seem to be so full of gay perverts?
What have republicans accomplished the past 6 years? Wiretapping and torture?

Bravo, Bush. Bravo.

RANDOM...

Let's see....
Last week was the first week of October and since 1949 over 330 astroids have landed on peoples houses. The stock market has hit all time highs, but yet the number of acres of lawn in America keeps growing. The average length of cable it takes to pull a rock out of the ground was recorded to be over 12 feet; at the same time, the number of minorities in college who do homework drunk has stayed the same.

Bravo, Bush. Bravo.

[off piste]

RANDOM...

Let's see....
Last week was the first week of October and since 1949 over 330 astroids have landed on peoples houses. The stock market has hit all time highs, but yet the number of acres of lawn in America keeps growing. The average length of cable it takes to pull a rock out of the ground was recorded to be over 12 feet; at the same time, the number of minorities in college who do homework drunk has stayed the same.

Bravo, Bush. Bravo.
:har::har::har:


What an awesome day for a ride!

[TrailBate]

I see. So since Bush has nothing to do with asteroids, he has nothing to do with anything else? Genius logic.
This is the same Bush who said back in 2000 about N Korea getting nukes, "Not on my watch"

[catbbq]

I see. So since Bush has nothing to do with asteroids, he has nothing to do with anything else? Genius logic.
This is the same Bush who said back in 2000 about N Korea getting nukes, "Not on my watch"

Ok Mr. MENSA, tie NK, Iraq, sex scandals, and torture together in a logical way. Just saying Bush is the current president doesn't count. Or, if it does, then it counts just as much as you being in your current job.

[Slappy]

On a more positive note, the Illustrious President Bush single handedly lowered the gas prices considerably over the past few weeks. He's kept the local weather simply gorgeous lately, house prices are down, spinach is once again safe. And Germany and Japan, according to a recently posted list of the richest countries, don't seem to be doing so badly under US 'occupation' now do they?

HOOORAYYY FOR GWB!!!! :rad:
Specially that magic weather machine he once used to practically wipe out N.O. Seems to be using it for good instead of evil in the northeast these day. Can't you guys appreciate anything he does?

[TrailBate]

hmmm... gas prices are down. Just before the November elections. What a convenient coincidence.

You guys are truly making moronic arguments. Asteroids? The nice weather? And Bush has nothing to do with Iraq, N Korea, and torture?

You guys are exhibit A of why this fascist pig is still president. You can't put 2 and 2 together.

[orangediamback]

LOL....torture??????

what torture,i know your not talkin about guantonamo bay??

if you call that torture,you have NOOOOOOOO idea

[orangediamback]

o and if we did anything ,miliatryly about n korea and nukes..u libs would be up in arms about how we shouldnt.....you love to play the see i told you so...but if ya do something you cry about it

[TrailBate]

LOL....torture??????

what torture,i know your not talkin about guantonamo bay??

if you call that torture,you have NOOOOOOOO idea

let me guess; You own a Club Gitmo t-shirt? Why have so many prisoners been killed in captivity? they choked on their 5-star chicken dinners? Of all the pictures and stories that have come out, how can you still sit there and claim they're not getting tortured? Are you not aware how the Bush administration is getting torture legalized? you're not even paying attention, dude.

[TrailBate]

o and if we did anything ,miliatryly about n korea and nukes..u libs would be up in arms about how we shouldnt.....you love to play the see i told you so...but if ya do something you cry about it

Oh, ok. Now you're comparing Iraq with N Korea? You have no idea what you're talking about.

[orangediamback]

i didnt compare anything.

and no i think torture is something far more horrifying then what you thinik it is.havin a person nude on a box or dogs barkin at them.that is called humiliation not torture.electricution,whipping,beating severly,raping,BEHEADING..thats torture...

[off piste]

hmmm... gas prices are down. Just before the November elections. What a convenient coincidence.

You guys are truly making moronic arguments. Asteroids? The nice weather? And Bush has nothing to do with Iraq, N Korea, and torture?

You guys are exhibit A of why this fascist pig is still president. You can't put 2 and 2 together.

Actually, the reason he's still president is because of the joke the Democrats made their frontrunner in the last election.....

[catbbq]

i didnt compare anything.

and no i think torture is something far more horrifying then what you thinik it is.havin a person nude on a box or dogs barkin at them.that is called humiliation not torture.electricution,whipping,beating severly,raping,BEHEADING..thats torture...


Have you ever been beheaded? How can you say that is torture?

Trying to glean logic from trailbait's arguments is torture.

[orangediamback]

ok minus the beheading.....

define torture....

[Mr_Cheeze]

Here is a good example of the way Liberals think information should be gleaned from prisoners. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F56ZZzz4meU&mode=related&search==

[Slappy]

Why have so many prisoners been killed in captivity?

'So' many?

How many????

[Slappy]

hmmm... gas prices are down. Just before the November elections. What a convenient coincidence.

NICE! GWB in '06!

Oh, wait..I mean...

GWB in '08!

Oh, wait again...dammit...what am I gonna do now? Okay...

Anybody except Hillary in '08!
Unless of course she can knock gas down to $1.50/gal.

[kernel crash]

"Trying to glean logic from trailbait's arguments is torture."

Damn right! Thats the most accurate statement on this whole thread.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I still think Bush should receive the EPA Environmental Award for curing the instabilities in the environment which has led to massive hurricanes and possibly fixing global warming.

[TrailBate]

Right, right. Those dogs didn't actually BITE anyone, according to George W. There was no electricity in those batteries that the prisoners were hooked up to. Just ask Kernel, he'll tell you they would have died in Iraq anyway. Oh, Al Qaida trained those prisoners to lie about how they were treated, just like the devil used to whisper into the ears of witches in Salem before they were hanged.
Go to any Human Rights website. You know, the same ones the Bushies quoted about Iraq before the war. Or, read about how Cheney himself is LEGALIZING torture. Oh, I know, we wouldn't actually DO it, though.
It's pretty sad you guys can't even defend Bush anymore. All you can come up with is jokes and asteroids, or you claim Bush has nothing to do with Iraq or torture. (?????)

[catbbq]

Right, right. Those dogs didn't actually BITE anyone, according to George W. There was no electricity in those batteries that the prisoners were hooked up to. Just ask Kernel, he'll tell you they would have died in Iraq anyway. Oh, Al Qaida trained those prisoners to lie about how they were treated, just like the devil used to whisper into the ears of witches in Salem before they were hanged.
Go to any Human Rights website. You know, the same ones the Bushies quoted about Iraq before the war. Or, read about how Cheney himself is LEGALIZING torture. Oh, I know, we wouldn't actually DO it, though.
It's pretty sad you guys can't even defend Bush anymore. All you can come up with is jokes and asteroids, or you claim Bush has nothing to do with Iraq or torture. (?????)

But what about North Korea? You made a statement that seemed to link Bush to all the problems in North Korea, Iran, Israel, Iraq, the sex scandals, the coverups, and the Catholic church's problems.

So once again Mr. Mensa, what is the link? You don't have one, so all YOU can do is blame Bush for things he has nothing to do with.

[kernel crash]

"Just ask Kernel, he'll tell you they would have died in Iraq anyway."

I know you like to take that quote and use it out of context but my original point was Iraqies were dying by the hundreds every week under Sadam's watch. It's not like we stormed into Bermuda and started tearing up the country.

[TrailBate]

But what about North Korea? You made a statement that seemed to link Bush to all the problems in North Korea, Iran, Israel, Iraq, the sex scandals, the coverups, and the Catholic church's problems.

So once again Mr. Mensa, what is the link? You don't have one, so all YOU can do is blame Bush for things he has nothing to do with.

Are you trying to say that Bush has nothing to do with the current N Korea situation?

[catbbq]

Are you trying to say that Bush has nothing to do with the current N Korea situation?

You said that he did and made vague connections to Iraq, Iran, the Catholic church, and sex scandals. Just waiting for you to provide some facts to tie them all together.

[kernel crash]

So now the liberals are looking for an "October Surprise" to ensure Republican victory. Here's 3 samples from a liberal blogs. (The Huffington Post to be exact) Remember these are not my words, but I will rethink everything if some of these comes to play.

"Get ready for a false flag operation in the sea outside Iran. The U.S. may be planning to torpedo one of its own ships, killing its own sailors, and blaming it on the Iranians.

The other plausible scenario is "Israel will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Chimpy is playing backup. All the glory, half the risk,"

One response I found especially diabolical, but logical, was added by MinGA. I won't quote it, but it outlines the Foley October surprise as a Republican strategy to distract the media while preparing for the Iranian attack.

[MTBME]

I realize these are the same people that believe WE blew up the world trade towers. Here are the obvious flaws in these scenerios as I see them.

<Get ready for a false flag operation in the sea outside Iran. The U.S. may be planning to torpedo one of its own ships, killing its own sailors, and blaming it on the Iranians.>

Every sailor in that submarine would know about this. How do you keep everybody quiet and on board in this day of daily leaks?

<The other plausible scenario is "Israel will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Chimpy is playing backup. All the glory, half the risk," >

Israel just lost the PR battle in Lebanon. This would be a bad time for something like this and would put American soldiers and civilians in the Middle East at even more risk.

<the Foley October surprise as a Republican strategy to distract the media while preparing for the Iranian attack.>

So the republicans throw one of their own under the bus and risk the house and senate to open another front while the existing fronts, Iraq and Afganistan, are increasingly unpopular at home. This would clearly define mental illness.

[catbbq]

There was an article on NPR yesterday or the day before where the conservative guest was saying the is the best time for the republicans to lose since it will give everyone 2 years to see the liberals fail assuring a republican congress and white house in 2008.

Make's sense unless the liberals are capable of doing something in 2 years.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Devil's Advocate time: :devil


I realize these are the same people that believe WE blew up the world trade towers. Here are the obvious flaws in these scenerios as I see them.

<Get ready for a false flag operation in the sea outside Iran. The U.S. may be planning to torpedo one of its own ships, killing its own sailors, and blaming it on the Iranians.>

Every sailor in that submarine would know about this. How do you keep everybody quiet and on board in this day of daily leaks?

How do you keep sailors on a submarine quiet? Here's a better question. How would sailors on a submarine plausibly leak any information about anything? Cell phones? Besides, this scenario would involve a black operation. Regular sailors or marines wouldn't be involved.


<The other plausible scenario is "Israel will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Chimpy is playing backup. All the glory, half the risk," >

Israel just lost the PR battle in Lebanon. This would be a bad time for something like this and would put American soldiers and civilians in the Middle East at even more risk.

With whom did Israel lose the PR battle? Arabs? Peaceniks? They didn't lose anything, and even if they did, do you really believe they give a crap?


<the Foley October surprise as a Republican strategy to distract the media while preparing for the Iranian attack.>

So the republicans throw one of their own under the bus and risk the house and senate to open another front while the existing fronts, Iraq and Afganistan, are increasingly unpopular at home. This would clearly define mental illness.

Somebody doesn't understand politics very well. This stuff happens all of the time, bro, and in both parties.

[MTBME]

"Somebody doesn't understand politics very well. This stuff happens all of the time, bro, and in both parties."

Well this would be a little over the top even for this day and age. I'm not saying its impossible, just highly improbable. Get the popcorn, sit back, and lets see how this plays out.

[orangediamback]

so when are we invading N korea,im up for it

[Mr_Cheeze]

Hopefully at night. Have you seen that satellite image of Noth and South Korea at night? Except for Pyongyang, no electricity in North Korea. Hey, but maybe the ground will be glowing soon.

[MTBME]

The fear has always been that million man army rolling over the border like a flock of locust into South Korea. One has to wonder whether those soldiers would have an AK47 in their hands or an empty cup looking for a bowl of rice.

[TrailBate]

You said that he did and made vague connections to Iraq, Iran, the Catholic church, and sex scandals. Just waiting for you to provide some facts to tie them all together.

Actually, this is what I said about the Catholic church and sex scandals:

"Republicans are busy covering up illegal homosexual affairs with underage boys......why is it that all these conservative, anti-gay organizations (Catholic church) seem to be so full of gay perverts?"

Then you ask me to try to tie Bush with the situations in Iraq and N Korea? Do you really need somebody to explain that to you?

[TrailBate]

The fear has always been that million man army rolling over the border like a flock of locust into South Korea. One has to wonder whether those soldiers would have an AK47 in their hands or an empty cup looking for a bowl of rice.

I don't think the issue is the soldiers, it's the thousands of missiles and rockets aimed at Seaul. ( I really gotta look up the proper spelling....) and the chemical/biological weapons. I'd say, we better attack when there is a strong wind out of the south.

[TrailBate]

So now the liberals are looking for an "October Surprise" to ensure Republican victory. Here's 3 samples from a liberal blogs. (The Huffington Post to be exact) Remember these are not my words, but I will rethink everything if some of these comes to play.

"Get ready for a false flag operation in the sea outside Iran. The U.S. may be planning to torpedo one of its own ships, killing its own sailors, and blaming it on the Iranians.

The other plausible scenario is "Israel will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Chimpy is playing backup. All the glory, half the risk,"

One response I found especially diabolical, but logical, was added by MinGA. I won't quote it, but it outlines the Foley October surprise as a Republican strategy to distract the media while preparing for the Iranian attack.

So, Kernel. Did you actually read this on Huffington post? Or did you get it off of some other site, say, Drudge Report?

[catbbq]

So let's see...
N Korea now has a nuke, and continues to test missiles. Iran is threatening to wipe Israel off the map. Iraq continues to collapse, with 25 American soldiers dead so far this month. The Iraq occupation is causing terrorism to spread. Republicans are busy covering up illegal homosexual affairs with underage boys......why is it that all these conservative, anti-gay organizations (Catholic church) seem to be so full of gay perverts?
What have republicans accomplished the past 6 years? Wiretapping and torture?

Bravo, Bush. Bravo.


I quoted again just so we all remember what you are trying to explain.

I need the explaination of how Bush (Bravo, Bush. Bravo.) is responsible for the Catholic church being full of perverts.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I understood it as being an aside to drive home the point about hypocrisy within the conservative, anti-gay establishment, which includes the church.

[catbbq]

I understand it as Trailbait blaming everything on Bush. That is exactly why he commands no respect around here. Its one thing to blame something on Bush that at least has something behind it, but when you start bringing just random bad things in, its completely blows the case.

The reasons behind the Catholic church being a refuge for gay men are created by the church itself. The fact that some of those gay men are also pedophiles its just luck of the draw. I would guess there is an equal percentage population of pedophiles in the church as in the general public. And again, it is the church's fault for covering them up.

As for cover ups in general among the republican pedophiles, the catholic pedophiles, and anyone else goes way back before Bush. Society has been on a steady decline probably for most of the last century. People no longer have self respect. Without self respect, people don't respect others either and it is a self fulfilling downward spiral. You see it everywhere from Bush's war to Clinton's blowjob to sports star's raping fans.

Bravo Society. Bravo.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I understand it as Trailbait blaming everything on Bush. That is exactly why he commands no respect around here. Its one thing to blame something on Bush that at least has something behind it, but when you start bringing just random bad things in, its completely blows the case.

He and Slider have been doing this for a long time. It just makes it easier to argue with them much of the time, and makes for lively, and interesting debate.


The reasons behind the Catholic church being a refuge for gay men are created by the church itself. The fact that some of those gay men are also pedophiles its just luck of the draw. I would guess there is an equal percentage population of pedophiles in the church as in the general public. And again, it is the church's fault for covering them up.

This is going off on somewhat of a tangent and beside the point of TB's original aside, for which, in a general sense, he is correct. He wasn't blaming Chuch scandals or Republican cover-ups on Bush. But the implication that conservatives are hypocrites when it comes to being anti-gay is hard to deny.


Society has been on a steady decline probably for most of the last century. People no longer have self respect. Without self respect, people don't respect others either and it is a self fulfilling downward spiral. You see it everywhere from Bush's war to Clinton's blowjob to sports star's raping fans.

Bravo Society. Bravo.

Oh please. You sound like a mix between a crack psychologist and one of these born-again, "the End Times are near" geniuses. Times change, people change. Technology and progress has its consequences. The Messiah is not coming, bro. Hate to inform you.

[Slider]

I can back up everything I claim about Bush. And I have. I think we're touching on this policy/real world relation thing again. Saying Bush's envoronmental policy is stuipid and harmful is NOT saying he invented the internal combustion engine. Saying that signing statements amount to an unconstitutional power grab that threaten democracy, that torture is both wrong and illegal, and that imperialistic wars are incredibly ill-conceived is NOT saying he's an evil, facisitic, corrupt...Oh, wait. I guess that is exactly what I AM saying. Sorry.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Ok, so when are you going to back up how Bush's environmental policy is harmful with substantial facts? You haven't done it yet, nor will you. You can only criticize his decisions and suggest that it likely will be damaging if left unchanged, but going beyond that is hyperbole. Sorry, but 6 years isn't anywhere near long enough for a couple of environmental policy shifts to show "real world" effect. You saying it 50 times won't make it true, either.

[catbbq]

Oh please. You sound like a mix between a crack psychologist and one of these born-again, "the End Times are near" geniuses. Times change, people change. Technology and progress has its consequences. The Messiah is not coming, bro. Hate to inform you.

You right, times and people do change. Seems they only change for the worst lately. Then again, maybe it just the media pointing out all the bad that has always been there. As for the Messiah, time will tell. You best hope your right on that one.

[Slider]

Ok, so when are you going to back up how Bush's environmental policy is harmful with substantial facts? You haven't done it yet, nor will you. You can only criticize his decisions and suggest that it likely will be damaging if left unchanged, but going beyond that is hyperbole. Sorry, but 6 years isn't anywhere near long enough for a couple of environmental policy shifts to show "real world" effect. You saying it 50 times won't make it true, either.

Interesting, and cause/effect related again. What happens to the CO2 or acidic emissions that were NOT curtailed during the 8 years of Bush's reign? Did they simply evaporate into thin air, or did they add to greenhouse gasses and poison lakes in the northeast?

Now these two issues are but a small part of a far broader swath of environmental insults Bush has enabled/allowed/created. We can talk Endangered Species Act, curtail;ing the EPA, and many other examples of failure to enforce protective laws already on the books. Is your position really that it doesn't matter what we did for the last six, going on eight, years?

Cause/effect. It is a simple concept.

Slider

[catbbq]

Cause/effect. It is a simple concept.

Slider

Simple concept but very difficult to prove. Correlation is not causation.

[Slider]

It insn't correlation to say that acid in the air from midwest factories causes acid rain here. It is fact, and proven so. And endangered species are endangered, and removing protection for them greatly increases the chance they'll become extinct, with lots of secondary environemental consequence. And curtailing enforcement of existing anti-pollution laws does mean that more pollution is released into the environment and really, that is not a good thing.

It is not rocket science. The whole attempt to cloud the relationship betwen environmental law and the state of the environment seems just plain stupid to me.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

As for the Messiah, time will tell. You best hope your right on that one.

Or else what? Humor me.

[Mr_Cheeze]

It insn't correlation to say that acid in the air from midwest factories causes acid rain here. It is fact, and proven so. And endangered species are endangered, and removing protection for them greatly increases the chance they'll become extinct, with lots of secondary environemental consequence. And curtailing enforcement of existing anti-pollution laws does mean that more pollution is released into the environment and really, that is not a good thing.

It is not rocket science. The whole attempt to cloud the relationship betwen environmental law and the state of the environment seems just plain stupid to me.

Slider

But again, this is all supposition. It's like saying, it rained, so the ground is wet. No sh*t. I'm not at all saying that it doesn't matter what we did or didn't do in any given time frame. What I am saying is that you can't imply that Bush is at fault for environmental effect. Everything you cite, though important, and certainly of concern if left unchecked longterm, is simply not enough for anyone to definitively state that x caused y, where x is policy and y is substantial effect, e.g. level 5 hurricanes. I fully agree that Bush was wrong to scale back the clean air and water acts. But I'm not buying that such actions caused catastrophe or a measurable increase in global warming related effects. All we can hope is that the next guy (or shrill wench) to get into office will reverse the trend that Bush started.

[Slider]

I never said Bush created global warming or acid rain. What I have said, clearly and repeatedly, is that his policies have made things worse even in the short term, and the cumulative effect of his inept leadership is making our long-term prospects much worse.

If we hadn't been spewing all sorts of toxins into the air in the midwest, more fish would be alive, now, in New England lakes. You are aware of the dieoffs from the acid rain, yes? You understand that most of what we see here comes from the midwest, yes? Stop that, and the consequences here, real ones, are diminshed.

This isn't some mumbo-jumbo like, say, trickle down economic policy. It is real, measurable, and capable of being reversed, if only slowly.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

This isn't some mumbo-jumbo like, say, trickle down economic policy. It is real, measurable, and capable of being reversed, if only slowly.

Slider

Then doesn't it stand to reason, using your own logic, that if whatever Bush caused consequences there may be can be revervsed, "if only slowly", then those very consequences could only have taken effect on a like basis, i.e. only slowly? You can't have it both ways.

[Slider]

The effect of years of acid rain is cumulative. The die offs are ongoing. Failure to rein in the first contibutes to the second, and six years going on eight is a long time. What is so hard to understand about this?

Slider

[catbbq]

The effect of years of acid rain is cumulative. The die offs are ongoing. Failure to rein in the first contibutes to the second, and six years going on eight is a long time. What is so hard to understand about this?

Slider

The die-offs just started 6 years ago? We had a pristine environment until 2000?

I need to see some evidence that shows fish populations taking a dramatic turn around 2000. Even then it is still just correlation. Just like miniskirts and the markets.

[catbbq]

Or else what? Humor me.

Worst case - Enternal damnation.
Best case - President Hillary.

[Slider]

This is really unbelievable. You mean to tell me that the current administration is not responsible for its response to any process that predated it? The concept is so idiotic that it is hard to formulate a reply.

Slider

[TrailBate]

We've got more lead and mercury in our water, thanks to Bush. Bush has relaxed more environmental laws, mainly those pertaining to how much pollutants industry can leak into the environment. He has reversed many environmental laws put in place by Clinton.


On another "aside", here's a great article by Factcheck about how much Clinton did against terrorism. And you know you can trust Factcheck, since Cheney himself urged you to visit it during the 2004 campaign. Notice the part about Rice lying about being warned of al qaeda.

http://www.factcheck.org/article444.html

[TrailBate]

This is really unbelievable. You mean to tell me that the current administration is not responsible for its response to any process that predated it? The concept is so idiotic that it is hard to formulate a reply.

Slider

You think THAT is unbelievable? Read back a few pages. Apparently Bush also has nothing to do with Iraq, torture, and N Korea.

[TrailBate]

The die-offs just started 6 years ago? We had a pristine environment until 2000?

I need to see some evidence that shows fish populations taking a dramatic turn around 2000. Even then it is still just correlation. Just like miniskirts and the markets.


Not at all. But Clinton was trying to put policies in effect to help save the environment. Bush is selling forests and parks to fund schools he can't pay for since he's fighting a war with tax cuts.

[orangediamback]

You think THAT is unbelievable? Read back a few pages. Apparently Bush also has nothing to do with Iraq, torture, and N Korea.

now its bush's fault for N.korea,and torture

typical,blame the bigger guy.just like its tv's fault kids are more violent.not the parents for letting them watch the shows that have violence.

and n korea has been a ticking time bomb.but i guess its bush's fault cause i guess everything is.i guess its just easier to pin everything on one guy.i hope a democratic gets elected so we can blame him for the worlds problem(or her)

[Mr_Cheeze]

The effect of years of acid rain is cumulative. The die offs are ongoing. Failure to rein in the first contibutes to the second, and six years going on eight is a long time. What is so hard to understand about this?

Slider

It's not hard to understand what you are saying at all, even though your logic is whacked. You want to attribute more blame than is actually deserved by suggesting that reversing environmental policies is somehow tantamount to catastrophic events. Six years worth of increased pollutants, although cumulative, yes, is not irriversable at a slower rate than you imply. This living planet has the capacity to heal itself very easily given a chance. Without making it seem like I am defending Bush here, I think that he thought that he could get away with scaling back these policies knowing that the next guy in office will likely be pressured to put them back in place. His people told him that, hey, what irreparable harm can a few years do? It's typical Republican kowtowing to industry bullsh*t, but they are correct, regardless. It's not like they exploded a nuke, here. Acid rain has been happening for 75 years or more. Suddenly it's a greater threat because Bush isn't so worried about it?

You do realize that Bush is done in two years, right? Maybe you should start worrying about who the next President is going to be, and whether they will be more environmentally friendly. This debate seems rather pointless.

[kernel crash]

As Ronald Regan once said, "There he goes again". So TrailBait insists that N. Korea is Bush fault. Thats the kind of statement that makes all your other opinions open to ridicule. Step back a little. Didn't Clinton work out a deal with North Korea that if they behaved themselves we would give them oil, food and the equipment to build a nuclear reactor, for peacetime purposes of course. How did that work out? So now Bush is criticized for not having one on one talks with North Korea by the same people that criticized Bush for "going it alone" in Iraq. So why should the countries on North Koreas border like China, South Korea and Japan a little "downwind" not be included in the talks? A better question is why we should let a little piss hole of a country blackmail us.

[Mr_Cheeze]

now its bush's fault for N.korea,and torture

typical,blame the bigger guy.just like its tv's fault kids are more violent.not the parents for letting them watch the shows that have violence.

and n korea has been a ticking time bomb.but i guess its bush's fault cause i guess everything is.i guess its just easier to pin everything on one guy.i hope a democratic gets elected so we can blame him for the worlds problem(or her)

They like to forget that this issue with North Korea really started back on Clinton's watch, with nuclear secrets getting out, and getting conned into believing that they were friendly. But everytime you bring up Clinton's name, they get huffy.

That said, you can't deflect some blame from Bush. It was his - well, really Cheney's and Rumsfeld's - decision to go into Iraq, and now we're bogged down with too many assets in a place they shouldn't be. Really, what are we going to do if N. Korea decides that they want the South after all? More sanctions?

[catbbq]

We've got more lead and mercury in our water, thanks to Bush. Bush has relaxed more environmental laws, mainly those pertaining to how much pollutants industry can leak into the environment. He has reversed many environmental laws put in place by Clinton.


So Bush put lead and mercury into the water?

[Slider]

So Bush put lead and mercury into the water?

Here's what you all just can't seem to get. Yes, there is more mercury in the water because of Bush. He didn't put it there directly, but he stopped the effort to control the release of it into the atmosphere. He did this by gutting the Clean Air act and preventing the EPA from enforcing it, along with a lot more regulations that were carefully crafted before his time.

THAT MEANS HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RESULTING POLLUTION.

Slider

[Slappy]

Once he ran over my dog. Twice.

True story.

[Slider]

Even then, you'll get people here arguing that he had nothing to do with it.

Slider

[catbbq]

Here's what you all just can't seem to get. Yes, there is more mercury in the water because of Bush. He didn't put it there directly, but he stopped the effort to control the release of it into the atmosphere. He did this by gutting the Clean Air act and preventing the EPA from enforcing it, along with a lot more regulations that were carefully crafted before his time.

THAT MEANS HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RESULTING POLLUTION.

Slider


So it comes down to the government being responsible for everything. Universal Everycare.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Is it his fault the stupid mutt wasn't on a leash and ran out into the road?

[Slappy]

GW drove right thru my fence, crashed into the front of the house and smooshed him as he slept on the hearth rug. He was glassy eyed and mumbling something about Teddy having nothing on him. Then he used the bathroom and split. I tell ya, I hate that f'ing guy now.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Was it his fault your stupid house was right in the middle of the... of the... friggin way?!?! And the mongrel... aren't those things supposed to have a sixth sense? And it just kept lying there? Yea, sure, that's Bush's fault.

Beside, it was a SS agent that was driving. Hate him.

[Slider]

So it comes down to the government being responsible for everything. Universal Everycare.

Typical leap from a specific to some broad, inane generalization.

Besides that, as a country we clearly did decide the government should help us protect the environment, when we created the EPA, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and all those other protective tools Bush has chosen to gut, undermine, or otherwise illegally ignore.

Slider

[orangediamback]

ya......raise the taxes to pay for them.........

cause i mean we have all the money in the world,so lets fix every single problem and give them tons of money.and make????????????????o us pay in taxes and such

[Slider]

Polluters pay for cleanup, at least when the EPA does its job of tracking them down. On the other hand, when they don't, we all REALLY pay, by tax-funded cleanups when the damage has spread even more widely.

So if exposure to cost is your complaint, get Bush to enforce the law.

Slider

[catbbq]

Typical leap from a specific to some broad, inane generalization.

Besides that, as a country we clearly did decide the government should help us protect the environment, when we created the EPA, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and all those other protective tools Bush has chosen to gut, undermine, or otherwise illegally ignore.

Slider

I don't see Bush's policies as being so specific. Seems pretty broad to me.

I guess as a country now we are deciding (since we re-elected Georgie) that the government shouldn't be helping anymore. Hooray for democracy! It works.

[Slider]

I don't see Bush's policies as being so specific. Seems pretty broad to me.

I guess as a country now we are deciding (since we re-elected Georgie) that the government shouldn't be helping anymore. Hooray for democracy! It works.

I wasn't talking about any Bush leap, but about yours from a specific conversation about environmental law to your extension of it to government oversight of everything. Really, read closely, you just might get it. Then again, maybe not, since you follow the exact same process when you "reason" that Bush re-election means the government "shouldn't be helping anyone." More inanity.

Breaking the law is not changing it, and even the Supreme Court has told Bush he, like the rest of us, must follow the law. Only when that happens do we even HAVE a democracy.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

The thing is, and I know that you know this: everybody knows the deal with most Republicans, but especially neo-conservative, Southern Republicans; i.e. not environmentally friendly, so Bush's policies never came as any surprise. Neither Reagan nor Bush I were hardly considered to be enviro-friendly.

[Slider]

Ignorance of the money savings engendered by environmental protection is not an excuse to ignore the law. In fact, there's no excuse to ignore the law, President or otherwise. If his backers want the laws changed, regarding the environment or anything else, then change them. Breaking them gets us all nothing except more cost.

If we need to talk dollars only, then let's. There are real costs associated with cancer, lung disease, and environmental degredation. You gonna spend your tourist dollars in Maine if the lakes and rivers are sterile? You gonna bike with a nice dose of emphesyma?

The dollar argument is the foundation for anti-environmental policy, and like pretty much all of Bush's ideas, it is completely ill-founded.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

I think you know their answer. Strict regulations cost businesses and industries more money up front. How do they make up for it? Cutting jobs and/or benefits. Not to defend them, but the folks making plastic thingies and chemicals for all kinds of stuff we use every day aren't so concerned about sterile lakes or acid rain. They're concerned about the worth of their stock. It's up to government to enforce certain things if they feel its so important, and, well, what do you think you are going to get with a pro-business, pro-capitalist party?

On the other hand, do you think the American people as a whole would be very happy knowing that their taxes may have to be raised to save a few fish and trees while keeping businesses thriving? The answer would be an overwhelming "hell no".

[TrailBate]

As Ronald Regan once said, "There he goes again". So TrailBait insists that N. Korea is Bush fault. Thats the kind of statement that makes all your other opinions open to ridicule. Step back a little. Didn't Clinton work out a deal with North Korea that if they behaved themselves we would give them oil, food and the equipment to build a nuclear reactor, for peacetime purposes of course. How did that work out? So now Bush is criticized for not having one on one talks with North Korea by the same people that criticized Bush for "going it alone" in Iraq. So why should the countries on North Koreas border like China, South Korea and Japan a little "downwind" not be included in the talks? A better question is why we should let a little piss hole of a country blackmail us.


N Korea had nuke technology before Clinton. It WAS Clinton that gave them food and oil. Oh, the horror! In exchange, N Korea's nuke program was closely monitored. It worked! How about that! I'm pretty sure that all the oil, food, and whatever else CLinton gave to N korea, adds up to a small fraction of what Iraq has cost.

Then Bush comes into office, completely tunes out N Korea (much like he tuned out Osama until 9/11), and guess what? Now N Korea has nukes.(Even though Bush said in 2000, "Not on my watch.") AND they've got some missiles to deliver them (Which they did not have while Clinton was around). Plus Bush bows out of most anti-nuke programs the US was once a part of, and instead decides to start building MORE nukes. What would you do if you were Iran? I'd freakin run out there and build some nukes as fast as I could.

And Bush was criticized for "going it alone" in a freakin INVASION. big diff. Not that I expect Kernel "they're all going to die anyway" Crash to notice.

[TrailBate]

On the other hand, do you think the American people as a whole would be very happy knowing that their taxes may have to be raised to save a few fish and trees while keeping businesses thriving? The answer would be an overwhelming "hell no".

Right. Because the economy was doing so horribly when Slick Willy was trying to protect the environment.

You think Americans would agree to pay higher taxes if it helped keep them from getting cancer?

[catbbq]

Right. Because the economy was doing so horribly when Slick Willy was trying to protect the environment.

You think Americans would agree to pay higher taxes if it helped keep them from getting cancer?

That's easy. No.

People eat fast food but it makes them obese.
People smoke but it gives them cancer.
People drink but it rots their liver.
People gamble but it takes their house.

Its really amazing what most American's are willing to spend their money on. Its cell phones and home theaters, not healthy organic food and mountain bikes.

[orangediamback]

N Korea had nuke technology before Clinton. It WAS Clinton that gave them food and oil. Oh, the horror! In exchange, N Korea's nuke program was closely monitored. It worked! How about that! I'm pretty sure that all the oil, food, and whatever else CLinton gave to N korea, adds up to a small fraction of what Iraq has cost.

Then Bush comes into office, completely tunes out N Korea (much like he tuned out Osama until 9/11), and guess what? Now N Korea has nukes.(Even though Bush said in 2000, "Not on my watch.") AND they've got some missiles to deliver them (Which they did not have while Clinton was around). Plus Bush bows out of most anti-nuke programs the US was once a part of, and instead decides to start building MORE nukes. What would you do if you were Iran? I'd freakin run out there and build some nukes as fast as I could.

And Bush was criticized for "going it alone" in a freakin INVASION. big diff. Not that I expect Kernel "they're all going to die anyway" Crash to notice.

wow,where are you getting your info from.so if they had nuke technology before clinton why didnt he do anything about it.did he think they would go away??and the new nukes we are making are bunker buster nukes.a conventional bomb does not have the capabilities that this would.underground.so i like the idea.if we had those in nam it woulda been a different story with them hiding in there tunnels and such.the difference is we dont use our nukes.i def think that iran and n korea would ON US.

[orangediamback]

N Korea had nuke technology before Clinton. It WAS Clinton that gave them food and oil. Oh, the horror! In exchange, N Korea's nuke program was closely monitored. It worked! How about that! I'm pretty sure that all the oil, food, and whatever else CLinton gave to N korea, adds up to a small fraction of what Iraq has cost.

Then Bush comes into office, completely tunes out N Korea (much like he tuned out Osama until 9/11), and guess what? Now N Korea has nukes.(Even though Bush said in 2000, "Not on my watch.") AND they've got some missiles to deliver them (Which they did not have while Clinton was around). Plus Bush bows out of most anti-nuke programs the US was once a part of, and instead decides to start building MORE nukes. What would you do if you were Iran? I'd freakin run out there and build some nukes as fast as I could.

And Bush was criticized for "going it alone" in a freakin INVASION. big diff. Not that I expect Kernel "they're all going to die anyway" Crash to notice.

wow,where are you getting your info from.so if they had nuke technology before clinton why didnt he do anything about it.did he think they would go away??and the new nukes we are making are bunker buster nukes.a conventional bomb does not have the capabilities that this would.underground.so i like the idea.if we had those in nam it woulda been a different story with them hiding in there tunnels and such.the difference is we dont use our nukes.i def think that iran and n korea would ON US.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Right. Because the economy was doing so horribly when Slick Willy was trying to protect the environment.

You think Americans would agree to pay higher taxes if it helped keep them from getting cancer?

Can you prove that higher taxes will definitively prevent cancer? No, therefore no. Unless the higher taxation comes from tobacco sales to the point where people will finally stop smoking or go bankrupt.

[MTBME]

You know, I think this guy actually makes sense.

"there is a wonderful "bonus" to a Democrat takeover of Congress — gridlock in D.C. With a divided government, few, if any, bills will pass. No good comes from politicians passing anything. All they do is find more ways to waste our money. A divided government means less government. And that my good friends is the best thing for America!

The Terri Schiavo incident was "ground zero" of the present GOP collapse. But Terri Schiavo was just the start of a long downhill descent for the GOP. Hurricane Katrina was the next in a long line of events that made the electorate realize that government (any government — Republican or Democrat) is a colossal incompetent failure and should be downsized and limited in power.

Next came President Bush's decision to use the only veto of his entire presidency to limit government funding of stem cell research. Bush never once used his veto power to cut spending, waste, or pork. He allowed government to grow unchecked at an alarming rate. Yet he chose his first and only veto to checkmate the will of the American people on a life and death issue like stem cell research. Are you kidding me? The stem cell controversy once again put Bush opposite the will of a large majority of the electorate. (Polls report that 70 percent or more of Americans support more government funding of stem cell research.) What amazing hubris on the part of Bush and his advisors — more proof that government thinks it knows better than the American people."

http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/10/17/105838.shtml?s=lh

[TrailBate]

Actually, Bush and his Republicans just signed legislation allowing for hearsay to be admissable evidence against detainees. (among other alarming un-American aspects)

Not since the Salem witch trials.

George Bush. Setting America back 200 years.

[TrailBate]

Actually, Bush and his Republicans just signed legislation allowing for hearsay to be admissable evidence against detainees. (among other alarming un-American aspects)

Not since the Salem witch trials.

George Bush. Setting America back 200 years.

[orangediamback]

come on we gotta keep this going.

[Mr_Cheeze]

You know, I think this guy actually makes sense.

"there is a wonderful "bonus" to a Democrat takeover of Congress — gridlock in D.C. With a divided government, few, if any, bills will pass. No good comes from politicians passing anything. All they do is find more ways to waste our money. A divided government means less government. And that my good friends is the best thing for America!

The Terri Schiavo incident was "ground zero" of the present GOP collapse. But Terri Schiavo was just the start of a long downhill descent for the GOP. Hurricane Katrina was the next in a long line of events that made the electorate realize that government (any government — Republican or Democrat) is a colossal incompetent failure and should be downsized and limited in power.

Next came President Bush's decision to use the only veto of his entire presidency to limit government funding of stem cell research. Bush never once used his veto power to cut spending, waste, or pork. He allowed government to grow unchecked at an alarming rate. Yet he chose his first and only veto to checkmate the will of the American people on a life and death issue like stem cell research. Are you kidding me? The stem cell controversy once again put Bush opposite the will of a large majority of the electorate. (Polls report that 70 percent or more of Americans support more government funding of stem cell research.) What amazing hubris on the part of Bush and his advisors — more proof that government thinks it knows better than the American people."

http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/10/17/105838.shtml?s=lh

Good article... and on Newsmax, no less. You know what the unfortunate thing is? Too many people are still so blinded by their loyalty to that R (or D) in front of a person's name that I'm afraid that the cycle will only continue to repeat itself for the forseeable future. It's scary. I know people personally who laud George W. Bush. They act like he's the second coming of Christ. I have to wonder, are they brainwashed? I think so! You know what it was? Remember way back when G.W. blurted out in one of his first debates against Al Gore when he said that his personal role model was Jesus Christ? I'm telling you, these blind loyalists all go back to that. He could be the worst president of all time (a strong candidate for such a dishonor, indeed) and these people will still laud and praise George W. Bush, the Jesus President!

I was listening to the Dennis and Callahan Show this morning, which I rarely do, but I just happened to tune in when they began an interview with Mass. Gubernatorial candidate, Christy Mihos. Callahan proceded to prove this phenomenon of blind loyalty to the big R when he proceded to lay into Mr. Mihos, not for any platform issues or campaign tactics, but for the simple fact that he dared to run against the Republican candidate as an Independent, and that it will be his fault that Deval Patrick may likely win. Mihos was flabberghasted, and I couldn't blame him. The blindly loyal Democrats understand it though. Ask them how they feel about Ralph Nader.

Blind loyal politics is hurting this country.

[Slappy]

Actually, Bush and his Republicans just signed legislation allowing for hearsay to be admissable evidence against detainees. (among other alarming un-American aspects)

Not since the Salem witch trials.

George Bush. Setting America back 200 years.


Maybe not. Certain types of 'hearsay' evidence are and have long been admissable under the numerous exceptions to the 'hearsay rule'.

What specifically does this 'new' legislation allow to be admitted that was inadmissable before?

[Mr_Cheeze]

Test

[catbbq]

You know, I think this guy actually makes sense.

"there is a wonderful "bonus" to a Democrat takeover of Congress — gridlock in D.C. With a divided government, few, if any, bills will pass. No good comes from politicians passing anything. All they do is find more ways to waste our money. A divided government means less government. And that my good friends is the best thing for America!

The Terri Schiavo incident was "ground zero" of the present GOP collapse. But Terri Schiavo was just the start of a long downhill descent for the GOP. Hurricane Katrina was the next in a long line of events that made the electorate realize that government (any government — Republican or Democrat) is a colossal incompetent failure and should be downsized and limited in power.

Next came President Bush's decision to use the only veto of his entire presidency to limit government funding of stem cell research. Bush never once used his veto power to cut spending, waste, or pork. He allowed government to grow unchecked at an alarming rate. Yet he chose his first and only veto to checkmate the will of the American people on a life and death issue like stem cell research. Are you kidding me? The stem cell controversy once again put Bush opposite the will of a large majority of the electorate. (Polls report that 70 percent or more of Americans support more government funding of stem cell research.) What amazing hubris on the part of Bush and his advisors — more proof that government thinks it knows better than the American people."

http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/10/17/105838.shtml?s=lh

I wish you were right, but alot of people don't see the government's incompetence as a good reason for less government, but for more government. The logic being, you have to throw more at it to fix it.

As for Bush's veto of the stem cell funding, I agree, but from a fiscal perspective. Its not the government's place to fund research that private companies will then take and profit from.

Cut federal spending 25% across the board, and do it every year from now on. No execeptions.

[orangediamback]

good call,except military....you never want to cut your military spending.it would cost twice as much to get it back to what it should be when the time comes

[TrailBate]

Hey, check it out.

Bush has appointed a new guy as head of the Mine Safety Agency. The appointment was opposed by the United Mine Workers of America!! Heh.

from crooksandliars:

President George W. Bush appointed former energy executive Richard Stickler to head the federal mine safety agency on Thursday, even though the U.S. Senate rejected Stickler's nomination twice in two months.

[..]Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, originally put a hold on the nomination for three months and it was automatically rejected when the Senate adjourned for its August recess. Bush then renominated him in September, but the Senate once again refused to act before it left for the pre-election recess.

Byrd and fellow Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts have said that Stickler, who worked for Massey Energy and the former Bethlehem Steel, puts industry interests ahead of safety concerns. The United Mine Workers of America have also opposed the appointment.

[Rych]

Rummy is gone.

[Slider]

When did this thread start working again? Just after the election?

Ding dong Rummy's gone, the wicked rummy's gone.

Effing murderous, arogant, lying, treacherous slimebag. Hmmm....I guess that applies to any of the Bush co-conspirators.

Slider

[orangediamback]

.

Effing murderous, arogant, lying, treacherous slimebag. Hmmm....I guess that applies to any of the liberal co-conspirators.

Slider
couldnt have said it better myslef.....lol

[Slider]

couldnt have said it better myslef.....lol


You'd have to be specific. Regarding the Republicans, I can be.

Pop quiz: What was the number one reason cited to the exit pollsters for the voters' choices?

Obvious answer: Corruption

And they we not talking about Democrats.

Slider

[kernel crash]

I dont know where you came up with that. I heard the main reasons why people voted the way they did was because they wanted "change" and they were upset with the Iraq war.

[Slider]

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/

Slider

[Slider]

This one will be fun to watch.

Slider

Friday, Nov. 10, 2006
Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse
A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo
By ADAM ZAGORIN
Just days after his resignation, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called "20th hijacker" and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a "special interrogation plan," personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski — who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case — has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: "It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ."

A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.

Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.

Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides "universal jurisdiction" allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a "a big, big problem." U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.

In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for rejecting the previous case — that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue — has been proven wrong.

"The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer," says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the legal action in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year, effectively blocks prosecution in the U.S. of those involved in detention and interrogation abuses of foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back to Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Ratner contends, the legal arguments underlying the German prosecutor's previous inaction no longer hold up.

Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is the latest example of efforts in Western Europe by critics of U.S. tactics in the war on terror to call those involved to account in court. In Germany, investigations are under way in parliament concerning cooperation between the CIA and German intelligence on rendition — the kidnapping of suspected terrorists and their removal to third countries for interrogation. Other legal inquiries involving rendition are under way in both Italy and Spain.

U.S. officials have long feared that legal proceedings against "war criminals" could be used to settle political scores. In 1998, for example, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet — whose military coup was supported by the Nixon administration — was arrested in the U.K. and held for 16 months in an extradition battle led by a Spanish magistrate seeking to charge him with war crimes. He was ultimately released and returned to Chile. More recently, a Belgian court tried to bring charges against then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for alleged crimes against Palestinians.

For its part, the Bush Administration has rejected adherence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.

[kernel crash]

"Exit polling suggested that an overwhelming majority of voters disapproved of the administration's handling of the war in Iraq,"

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/110906/rumsfeld2.html

[TrailBate]

"Exit polling suggested that an overwhelming majority of voters disapproved of the administration's handling of the war in Iraq,"

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/110906/rumsfeld2.html


Yet, they approved of corruption and sexual predators? I dont' think you even read Slider's link. Surprise, surprise.

(CNN) -- By a wide margin, Americans who voted Tuesday in the midterm election say they disapprove of the war in Iraq.

But when asked which issue was extremely important to their vote, more voters said corruption and ethics in government than any other issue, including the war, according to national exit polls.

[Slider]

That article is hilarious! :har: Now even the Reps are mad at GW! GW was looking out for number one! LOL!:D

Bush, despite all his conservative rhetoric, was never about ideology. His (and Rove's) moves were purely about power, and the money that flows from it. His only constituents are the oil companies and Haliburton. His objectives on their behalf have been fulfilled, so it's time to let the **** hit the fan, just as he makes his exit.

There a perversely satisfying irony in that. The "values" party, as it turns out, had none at all.

Slider

[TrailBate]

It's pretty funny to see all the conservatives suddenly turning against Bush. Even Foxnews.com had an editorial on it where the author said Bush's lie about firing Rumsfeld was worse than Clinton's lie about lewinsky. Suddenly a lot of right-wing blogs are claiming Bush never represented them, and is hijacking conservatism, blah blah blah. Even Geraldo Rivera went a little nutso on O'really the night after the elections about the Iraq war.

[orangediamback]

so your gonna pin one guy as sayin all of rep value's are junk?

so thats interesting

[Slider]

I am saying all the Bush talk about values was a smokescreen designed to help him run the country deep into debt so he could hand out plum contracts to his buds. It worked.

Slider

[FriedRys]

How the Republicans stole Florida...again.


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200611/POL20061114b.html

(CNSNews.com) - A Florida Democrat says he won't concede defeat in his race to unseat Republican Rep. Tom Feeney "until every vote is actually counted."

Clint Curtis said he is considering a legal challenge to the election results: "In this election, the results did not match the Zogby pre-election poll, our internal VoteNow2006.net polling, or our exit polling," Curtis explained.

"These anomalies need to be investigated and cleared up, not just in my race but for every district where the count just doesn't add up."

Curtis says he has informed the election officials in all four counties in Florida's 24th Congressional District that he is considering a challenge.

According to a news release put out by his campaign, Curtis "has worked tirelessly for over five years to correct issues in America's broken election system." And now, as a congressional candidate, Curtis finally "has the legal standing to pursue an investigation into the anomalies."

The campaign did not mention any "anomalies" aside from inaccurate polls.

Curtis said he plans to examine precinct numbers and personally contact voters, to "tie the voter to the vote."

"This will either confirm the official results or indicate discrepancies," he said. His campaign is seeking both money and volunteers to "participate in this historic effort to restore integrity and accuracy" in the electoral process.

The campaign said it will ask concerned citizens "to assist in contacting voters."

"I can accept that the citizens across the state of Florida were out of step with the rest of the country, as long as we know that this election truly reflects their intent," Curtis said.

The Feeney-Curtis race wasn't exactly close: With 100 percent of the precincts reporting, Feeney had 58 percent (123,557 votes) to Curtis's 42 percent (89,672).

[FriedRys]

Damn George Bush and his illegal war! Now he's trying to bring back the draft, he's gonna make this VietNam all over again even if it kills you......wait, George? no, it can't be, ohh my god, it is, it's Charlie!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/19/rangel.draft.ap/index.html

[off piste]

It's something, isn't it? It isn't even January yet, and these idiots are already setting the stage for their big moment the voters entrusted them with. It should be an interesting two years watching the dems do this to themselves:

http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/archive/oldnews2/immolation.jpg

[TrailBate]

Damn George Bush and his illegal war! Now he's trying to bring back the draft, he's gonna make this VietNam all over again even if it kills you......wait, George? no, it can't be, ohh my god, it is, it's Charlie!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/19/rangel.draft.ap/index.html

I believe the whole point of this "legislation", is that he believes we'd be less likely to go to war if we had a draft. To him, it's more of an anti-war move, than a pro-draft move. But, I could be wrong.....

[Mr_Cheeze]

I don't buy the theory that if a draft had been or would be in effect, that our government leaders would somehow be more careful with their decisions to go to war. Last I knew, the draft was in effect during the Vietnam War. What makes anyone believe that it would be different today? Rangel is out of his mind. If anything, a draft would make it easier to wage war.

Besides, those with financial means and/or connections have always been able to somehow avoid getting drafted into an infantry.

Here's another thought. Say the draft were to become reestablished. Would it include women? It should.

[Slappy]

In order to be most effective in furthering the author's cause, the proposed draft should be strictly limited to slim and attractive women in revealing outfits and caucasian children under the age of 8.

[TrailBate]

It was the draft that caused most of the protests during the Vietnam war. I guess the logic is that if there were a draft, a rep or senator would be less likely to be re-elected, and there would be more civil unrest......Don't you think if there were a draft, a LOT more 18-25 year-olds would have voted?

WKRO was arguing yesterday that there should be mandatory 2-year service for all 18 year-olds in America, which is a pretty weird idea coming from Iraq cheerleaders who never served, and considering it's what most socialist countries do....

[orangediamback]

i think its a pretty good idea.....

you would see alot more respect for this country if so.i know i have.and the draft is a horrible idea,why would you do that now.if anything it hould have been instated at the begining of the war not during...

[Mr_Cheeze]

I don't think Representative Rangold is at all sincere in his suggestion. This is designed purely to raise the hackles of more anti-war folks. Probably, as Trailbate suggests, the younger, politically apathetic people. There won't be a draft. Don't worry. Not unless WWIII breaks out for real, with N. Korea and Iran suddenly going all out. Plausible, but not very possible.

[off piste]

Like I said, it's going to be an interesting 2 years. So, this is what America is going to get for entrusting this party on 11/7. So, the plan is it force a segment of the population into voting for the left's policies concerning the war by passing legislation that would put that segment at risk for being sent into a situation which a good percentage would never be involved in with a volunteer army. Just beautiful.....

Edit -- Well, looks like the more moderate dems slapped down Charlie. I'm still holding out hope that the majority of dems in the country aren't like the moonbats we have here, and will continue to ignore the loonies in their party, and that we'll see a moderate style, but I'm not holding my breath.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112001121.html

[Slider]

Like I said, it's going to be an interesting 2 years.



The upside is that there's no way it could be any worse than it has been for the last six years.

Slider

[off piste]

The upside is that there's no way it could be any worse than it has been for the last six years.

Slider

I hope you're right. But, no way it could be worse -- sorry, that's just nuts.

[Slider]

Let me be more explicit. There's no way Bush can now expect to get away with the no-bid $100million contracts, treason, torture, environmental rape, illegal domestic spying, and all the other blatantly illegal and anti-democratic outrages that his former lapdogs in both houses abetted.

There are some fun hearings coming up.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

In other words, LET FREEDOM RING!!!

Um... for the terrorists, that is. :eek:

[TrailBate]

Osama has been pretty free the past 5 years, anyway.


oh, and THIS is just shocking: (sarc)

MADRID (Reuters) - Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the prison's former U.S. commander said in an interview on Saturday.

Former U.S. Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski told Spain's El Pais newspaper she had seen a letter apparently signed by Rumsfeld which allowed civilian contractors to use techniques such as sleep deprivation during interrogation.

Karpinski, who ran the prison until early 2004, said she saw a memorandum signed by Rumsfeld detailing the use of harsh interrogation methods.

"The handwritten signature was above his printed name and in the same handwriting in the margin was written: "Make sure this is accomplished"," she told Saturday's El Pais.


Seriously, is there ANYTHING Bush Co. has NOT lied about?

[MTBME]

Rumsfeld which allowed civilian contractors to use techniques such as sleep deprivation during interrogation.

Shocking!!! Oh the humanity. Not sleep deprivation. My God. Things are much worse than I could ever imagine. Lets see. Sleep deprivation or getting torched while soaked in kerosene? Which would I choose? Hmm. What about you TrailBait. Which would you choose? Or how bout getting the receiving end of an electric drill while your wide awake. Or maybe getting limbs hacked off before somebody decides your no fun anymore and well, lets just kill him now to make room for the next guy. I don't know. I think I'll have to sleep on this sleep deprivation thing before I can make a rational decision.

[Slider]

I vote high voltage to Rumsfeld's little, little balls.

Slider

[off piste]

I vote high voltage to Rumsfeld's little, little balls.

Slider

OK, but you get the electrode placing detail. http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/images/emoticons/023.gif

[TrailBate]

the fact is, there is proof that the abuse was not done by a few "bad apples" as RUMMY would have you believe. Like all us moonbats have been saying, this goes right to the top.