What an asshole...(nsr/political) [Archive] - Teton Gravity Research Forums

natty dread

03-26-2004, 04:28 PM

I promise, my next post will be ski-related ;)

I'm sure the dead soldiers' families found shrub's lighthearted jokes about the search for wmd quite amusing...
Not even his boy Rummy would back up the village idiot on this one.

Bush's Joke About WMD Draws Criticism
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: March 26, 2004

Filed at 5:54 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's humorous references to the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have drawn criticism from Democrats as inappropriate for wartime. The White House and Republicans contend the president was just poking fun at himself.

``This is a very serious issue,'' Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said Friday on ``Good Morning America'' on ABC. ``We've lost hundreds of troops, as you know, over there. Let's not be laughing about not being able to find weapons of mass destruction.''

Democratic candidate John Kerry's campaign said in a statement Thursday, ``If George Bush thinks his deceptive rationale for going to war is a laughing matter, then he's even more out of touch than we thought.''

Bush provided amusing descriptions of photographs Wednesday night during the annual dinner of the Radio and Television News Correspondents Association. Some showed the president in awkward poses as he looked behind furniture in the Oval Office. For those photos, Bush told the audience, ``Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere ... nope, no weapons over there ... maybe under here?''

Laughter erupted from the crowd of journalists, politicians and their guests then and at other times during Bush's remarks. For years the dinner has featured political and topical humor, most of it playful if barbed at times.

``The Democrats will go after anything,'' Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie told ABC. ``The fact is that this is the custom in these things. Presidents have made jokes about very serious matters at these dinners.You can hear the laughter, the people in the room obviously saw the humor in it at that moment, and to play it back now in a different context is unfair.''

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters Thursday she has treated the subject with respect and doesn't find it funny.

``I had thought that that was a little casual about a serious subject, but now the president has made it open season,'' said Pelosi, who attended the dinner.

White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said Thursday the president's comments were meant to be light.

``It's traditional at events like this dinner for the president to poke fun at himself,'' Buchan said.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was asked Thursday about the appropriateness of Bush's comments and the audience's reaction. He said he was ``not in a position to be judgmental about that'' because he had not been present at the event.

Democratic presidential candidate Al Sharpton called the joke ``one of the most despicable acts of a sitting president'' when he spoke Thursday night during a Democratic National Committee reception.

``Well, that's not a joke to us, Mr. Bush. Five hundred soldiers lost their lives, looking for weapons that weren't there. Billions of taxpayer dollars were spent looking for weapons that weren't there,'' Sharpton said. ``But guess what? You gonna look out that window in January and see a moving van to send you back to Texas.''

McAuliffe said legitimate questions have been raised about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a principal reason for going to war there. Nearly 600 U.S. soldiers have died since the war began in March 2003.

``They're not there. That is the issue. We should not take it to a new step to make fun of the situation,'' McAuliffe said.

mountainbored

03-26-2004, 04:32 PM

Bush has a good healthy family(no soldiers), all his fat cat buddys are getting richer by the minute and he has a team that will lie to back him up. Whats not to joke about?:rolleyes: :mad:

03-26-2004, 04:33 PM

I've been steaming about that since it hit the wire yesterday.

He's a total tool - laughing while "Rome" burns. Makes me sick.

If he wanted to poke fun at himself why didn't he laugh about what a good uniter he is:

"I'm a uniter not a divider"

(yeah this country is standing shoulder to shoulder behind you as is the rest of the world :rolleyes: )

03-26-2004, 04:36 PM

http://www.seeyageorge.com/shop/images/26.jpg

Great web site if you want to purchase stickers and what not (anti-Bush):

Two Unemployed Democrats (http://www.seeyageorge.com/shop/index.php?shop=1&cart=140741)

divegirl

03-26-2004, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by KQ
http://www.seeyageorge.com/shop/images/26.jpg

Great web site if you want to purchase stickers and what not (anti-Bush):

Two Unemployed Democrats (http://www.seeyageorge.com/shop/index.php?shop=1&cart=140741)

Thanks KQ. I have one of those stickers on both my monitors backgrounds now ("Save the environment - plant a Bush back in Texas"). Then again, I knew Bush was a #%&*er since the day he stepped foot in office. All the evidence on this board is just back-up.

mr_gyptian

03-26-2004, 05:14 PM

This is from Mickey Kaus's weblog. He hates Kerry, but is a staunch dem and definitely not part of the bush propaganda machine.

Please Go Back on Vacation, Part I: Kerry's back from Idaho, and his campaign's crack "rapid response" team has produced a 100% posturing condemnation of Bush's joke about failing to find WMD's, which Bush made at last night's black-tie broadcast correspondents' dinner. ("'This cheapens the sacrifice that American soldiers and their families are dealing with every single day'" says Kerry's release, quoting an Iraq veteran.)

I was at the dinner last night as a guest of, yes, FOX News, and I thought Bush's jokes were funny and self-mocking--maybe the closest he's come to actually admitting upfront that he was simply wrong in thinking the WMD's were there. But even the normally well-balanced David Corn seems to have lost his sense of perspective, writing a pious column attacking Bush's joke as "callous and arrogant":

Even if Bush does not believe he lied to or misled the public, how can he make fun of the rationale for a war that has killed and maimed thousands? Imagine if Lyndon Johnson had joked about the trumped-up Gulf of Tonkin incident that he deceitfully used as a rationale for U.S. military action in Vietnam: "Who knew that fish had torpedoes?" Or if Ronald Reagan appeared at a correspondents event following the truck-bombing at the Marines barracks in Beirut--which killed over 200 American servicemen--and said, "Guess we forgot to put in a stop light."

The difference, of course, is that the war Johnson fought using the Gulf of Tonkin incident produced very little except massive carnage and a Communist government in South Vietnam. The Beirut attack was a total loss. But American soldiers in Iraq--whether or not there were WMDs--are in the process of freeing a nation from a dictator. This accomplishment survives the Kay report. It doesn't "cheapen the sacrifice" American soldiers made achieving this goal to admit the truth about the WMDs. Does Kerry think the troops haven't achieved this? [You're for the Iraq War?--ed I have grave doubts about whether it will prove prudent in the long run, but they mainly have to do with the question of blowback--whether it will create more terrorists than it prevents. There's little question that on the whole it's a good thing for the Iraqis.] ...

P.S.: I was seated next to two soldiers who'd returned injured from Iraq and were being treated at Walter Reed hospital. If I'd known Bush's joke was going to be a major object of puffed-up outrage, I would have monitored their reactions closely. But I didn't. They certainly didn't register any audible displeasure. ...

P.P.S.: The soldier sitting closest to me clearly liked Bush, perhaps because he had just seen the president, in person, for the third time. Apparently, Bush pays regular visits to wounded soldiers at Walter Reed. Did you know that? I didn't. Admittedly, it's easier to visit the wounded than to go to funerals, which Bush has been accused of not doing enough of. Still ...

P.P.P.S.: The PR solution for Bush seems obvious: He should go to the memorial for a soldier killed in Iraq, take the pulpit and deliver a eulogy about why this was a sacrifice worth making. ... Elegies are easy! Bush's doesn't have to be the Gettysburg Address or touch the face of God. If it's memorable at all it will help Bush immeasurably and put an end to the Kerry camp's latest victimhood play. (First the 9/11 families get painted as Bush victims, now G.I.s.) ... And if the eulogy's not memorable ... well, it won't be remembered! A can't-lose proposition. 8:36 P.M.

DDsnake

03-26-2004, 05:21 PM

dubu

03-26-2004, 06:05 PM

Another sound bite gets people pissed off. (what a surprise)

This has to be the stupidest election year in history. No issues, are discussed. Kerry is the Democratic candidate not because of issues, but because of his electivity.

Lately every time I hear the Bush sucks rambling I want to vote for him, just because I don't want to be associated with supporting a candidate and party that wins by degrading the opposition. For example "We should not be in Iraq Bush lied, misled, etc etc" go for something like " I do not I agree with Bushes decisions for Iraq, In his shoes I would have done ...."

On that note has anyone listened to NPR in the past few months, the Bush bashing there is getting a little bit over the top. Every five minutes there is some joke, a preview to a story, reading, and smirk comment about Bush. Hmm maby cuz its Seattle there like to whine.

03-26-2004, 06:08 PM

splat

03-26-2004, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by KQ
LOL!!!! Too funny

"I'm George W.Bush and, what the hell, why not spend a couple hundred million degrading Kerry? That's what lobbyists are for."

Jumper Bones

03-27-2004, 01:26 AM

1. you know what? If Kerry wins, I'm gonna laugh because this country is officially FUCKED. What a decisive man, perfect for the executive office. Especially in these crucial years. I guess we'll vote to do nothing, because our president can't figure out what to do.

2. If Nader wins, I'm gonna laugh because hell truly has frozen over, and the unimangineable has occurred. That alone is worth more than a few laughs.

3. And if Bush wins again, I'm going to laugh my ass off, because of all this drivel that's been posted.

enough already, seriously. You're worse than Rush ever was during the era of "America held hostage". then again, that may be a compliment to some of you. But it's severely annoying. "UW frats overturned and burned my car during a riot over a football game, and it's Bush's fault. Blah dee blah dee blah."

KQ, when was the last time you posted something remotely related to skiing?

note - maybe laugh #2 is the best for the country. that alone makes it sweeter.

flame away, fuckers. I'm drunk, it don't matter.

mr_gyptian

03-27-2004, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by splat
"I'm George W.Bush and, what the hell, why not spend a couple hundred million degrading Kerry? That's what lobbyists are for."

Kerry should know, it's where he gets most of his campaign $$$.

Crinkle

03-27-2004, 10:16 AM

Dear Mr. Bush,

I am glad you find it funny cracking jokes about WMD, poking fun at the whole reason we went into Iraq(fucker). I am happy that it entertained "your" crowd of supporters(dickweed). Now as a show of good faith do us a favor and send some of our troops home, namely my brother, otherwise my mother is gonna have a stroke.

Sincerely yours,
you least favorite

Crinkle

LIP

03-27-2004, 11:24 AM

Now now, a tool is something useful!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by KQ
I've been steaming about that since it hit the wire yesterday.

He's a total tool - laughing while "Rome" burns. Makes me sick.

If he wanted to poke fun at himself why didn't he laugh about what a good uniter he is:

"I'm a uniter not a divider"

(yeah this country is standing shoulder to shoulder behind you as is the rest of the world :rolleyes: )

Samwich

03-27-2004, 01:28 PM

Yeah, Kerry is indecisive. Yeah, he's running because of his electivity. Yeah, he's not going to be the best president ever, if he wins.

But you know what? I'd rather have someone that can't make a decision than someone who makes all the wrong decisions.

Anyone but Bush '04.

Also, perhaps you haven't seen the commercials, dubu, but all the commercials paid for by Bush focus on degrading Kerry. In fact, the one i've seen the most focuses entirely on how Kerry is going to raise taxes. He has to do that in order to fix what Bush fucked up. Because Bush lowered taxes so much, Kerry has to raise them to what they were to reduce national debt etc. Bush is using his fuckup as a selling point of why he should remain in office. That scares me.

natty dread

03-27-2004, 02:59 PM

"Kerry is indecisive." More right wing party line nonsense that Rove et al hope will be repeated often enough until is becomes fact. That this is republicans' main talking point on Kerry is indicative of how desperate they are. They can't use Iraq, their credibility on 9/11 is rapidly eroding, 3+ million jobs have been lost, fire department budgets have been cut by $700 million nationwide, No Child Left Behind remains unfunded, the NEA is a "terrorist organization," the environment--forget about it, Cheney is being sued by the GAO over the energy plan. What to do? How about this: Kerry is...indecisive! Let's go with it!

Republicans seem to confuse reasoned thinking about issues (which our idiot-in-chief is obviously incapable of) with indecision.
Pathetic.

It is more and more clear that this administration did not care about wmd--they wanted to attack Iraq from the get-go. That this president could make light of the supposed reason that we have sacrificed almost 600 of our troops is inexcusable. Fuck him.

DDsnake

03-27-2004, 03:25 PM

Dexter Rutecki

03-27-2004, 03:30 PM

Plakespear

03-27-2004, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Jetter
KQ, when was the last time you posted something remotely related to skiing?

Who cares? The real question is: KQ, when was the last time you posted about your panties (or lack therefore of)?

mr_gyptian

03-27-2004, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
Yeah, right. Thinking about issues is considered indecisive--brilliant.

If it was thinking, it'd be one thing. However, it is voting both sides and or supporting either sides when it is politically expedient. Which is also not a case of indecisiveness.

Dexter Rutecki

03-27-2004, 05:19 PM

Not true, unless you're looking at it very simplistically, something our president specializes in. Votes may change as the issues evolve.

dipstik

03-27-2004, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Jetter

KQ, when was the last time you posted something remotely related to skiing?

Thanks to TGR's handy search, I can answer that question.

The last time KQ started a skiing related thread was on March 8th, 2004. It was about some avalanche at Crystal.

The time before that was on January 26th, 2004 about a program that taught underprivileged kids to snowboard. Does is count if its snowboard related?

If not, the next thread in line was about "historic snowfall" on January 7th, 2004. (which was pretty cool)

Also, thanks to a new feature that ONS recently put in, I was able to determine the ratio of KQ's anti-bush political threads to skiing related threads.
The ratio is: 4,700,543,213,545,430,436,957,891,375,195,329:1

mr_gyptian

03-27-2004, 05:49 PM

I guess Kerry's really not for or against anything as far as voting is concerned. He hasn't recorded a senate vote since before ski season.

here's a link to a short list of Kerry's "nuances".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A41071-2004Feb13&notFound=true

DaveTV

03-27-2004, 06:11 PM

This isn't a personality contest - it's about the future of our nation and the world, hopefully we can eventually undo some of the damage the current regime in Washington has done. :(

Dexter Rutecki

03-27-2004, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by mr_gyptian
He hasn't recorded a senate vote since before ski season.

Bullshit, unless ski season started in the past two days.

Jumper Bones

03-27-2004, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by dipstik
Also, thanks to a new feature that ONS recently put in, I was able to determine the ratio of KQ's anti-bush political threads to skiing related threads.
The ratio is: 4,700,543,213,545,430,436,957,891,375,195,329:1

hahahaha OMG!!! Nice!

Dr. Gaper

03-28-2004, 07:46 AM

Damn, son, you went from "I don't know shit about politics, teach me!" To this -

Originally posted by Samwich

Anyone but Bush '04.

.

It's obvious were your source of political education is coming from.

BanditXXX

03-28-2004, 08:05 AM

Lighten up ladies and gentlemen. A President with a sense of humor is ok. Who wants a stuffed shirt in the White House? Not me. I'm voting for Bush because he took a tough stance on Iraq and the terrorists. The U.S. is a safer place. And by the way, we are still at war. :cool:

DaveTV

03-28-2004, 08:56 AM

I'm voting for Bush because he took a tough stance on Iraq
You ARE joking - aren't you? :rolleyes: BTW be sure to let us know what your enlistment date is. :eek:

Tippster

03-28-2004, 09:50 AM

Rule #1: Unless it's about baseball, never - EVER - take anything George Will says as Fact.

Rule #2: See rule #1

cj001f

03-28-2004, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by BanditXXX
Lighten up ladies and gentlemen. A President with a sense of humor is ok.
WTF exactly is funny about throwing 591 US Soldiers and at least $100 billion down the drain because you screwed up?

splat

03-28-2004, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Jetter
1. you know what? If Kerry wins, I'm gonna laugh because this country is officially FUCKED. What a decisive man, perfect for the executive office. Especially in these crucial years. I guess we'll vote to do nothing, because our president can't figure out what to do.

2. If Nader wins, I'm gonna laugh because hell truly has frozen over, and the unimangineable has occurred. That alone is worth more than a few laughs.

3. And if Bush wins again, I'm going to laugh my ass off, because of all this drivel that's been posted.

enough already, seriously. You're worse than Rush ever was during the era of "America held hostage". then again, that may be a compliment to some of you. But it's severely annoying. "UW frats overturned and burned my car during a riot over a football game, and it's Bush's fault. Blah dee blah dee blah."

KQ, when was the last time you posted something remotely related to skiing?

note - maybe laugh #2 is the best for the country. that alone makes it sweeter.

flame away, fuckers. I'm drunk, it don't matter.

I've noticed that a substantial percentage people working for the government with whom I have engaged in discussions such as this almost inevitably seem to support any president who feeds the war machines without consideration of the fact said presidents get a hefty chunk of their campaign contributions from the military/industrial complex.

Is it just an oversight on their part?
Or did they join the service based on a need to participate in unjustified mass murders?
As far as I'm concerned, might is one thing, but deception and abuse of might another entirely.
George W. went to battle in Iraq for only two reasons:
1) Saddam tried to waste his daddy.
2) Oil.
If the motherfucker had just been honest enough to tell the American people he was pissed about his daddy almost getting whacked and that we could be getting gas for 50 cents a gallon for the next fifty years (sans Bush's cronies taking the lion's share of markup the market would bear) I would have had my own personal moral quandry regarding the invasion and murders.

powderfingerIII

03-28-2004, 12:30 PM

http://www.durchblicksite.de/magazin/db14/bush/bush_fucked.jpg

In response to Jetter...this has been proven...If we will be when Kerry becomes president remains to be seen.

Jumper Bones

03-28-2004, 06:17 PM

if we went to war to steal Iraq's oil, then why are gas prices so sky high now? Don't you think that a sudden surplus of oil flooding the market and lowering the costs would be noticeable? Besides the fact that getting that oil to market, or into corporate coffers, without anyone noticing would be the most massive conspiracy ever...

and no dick, I didn't join the service to feed my calling "to participate in unjustified mass murders." Originally, I joined to pay for college. Many others did too. Does that meet your approval?

Yeah, the ads for Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin all over CNN are a tad scary, but no more than GM ads for yet another gargantuan SUV and rising gas prices. It's the same corporate juggernaut.

Blurred Elevens

03-28-2004, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by DaveTV
This isn't a personality contest - it's about the future of our nation and the world, hopefully we can eventually undo some of the damage the current regime in Washington has done. :(

:rolleyes:

crashnburn'd

03-28-2004, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by splat

Or did they join the service based on a need to participate in unjustified mass murders?

I know 5 people that are in Iraq right now, of them 4 joined to pay for school. There's only a few people in the military that make the big decisions and it ain't the people that are over there. Do you think that if these people had a choice they would be there fighting? To call them mass murderers is extremely pathetic. Also, you're talking about mass murders - remember a guy named Saddam?

Just in case you're wondering, no, I don't support Bush and no, I'm not and wasn't ever for the war. I am however in support of the troops that are there.

splat

03-28-2004, 07:47 PM

Anyone who joins an army expecting to get exempted from being a party to killing doesn't need a college education. The ability to reason through that argument is elementary.
Based on your writing, Jetter, it appears you are opposed to the killing.
But then, saying you joined to get a college education rather than kill, while supporting the megacorp puppet imbecile who has now made you a party to death, is another stellar example of Bush logic.
WTF do these people think armies do?

fiddler

03-29-2004, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by dubu

Lately every time I hear the Bush sucks rambling I want to vote for him, just because I don't want to be associated with supporting a candidate and party that wins by degrading the opposition.
Let me see, a party that degrades it's opposition. The republicans haven't ever done that, have they? I know that the party machine and the right-wing media treated Clinton with the utmost respect every day he was in office. Yeah, thats a good reason to support them.
Use your brain dubu, in every election, every campaign, every time, candidates try to convince us that they are the best candidate. That inevitably means they will degrade the record and whatever else they can about their competition. It happens in each party's selection process among candidates of the same party as well as general elections. It won't stop any time soon.

repeat

03-29-2004, 12:48 AM

Did anyone watch C-span tonite? They aired a long debate between kerry and some other dude about the vietnam war. It was when Kerry was running for congress. He looked pretty suave with the bell bottoms! But on a more serious note i was truly disapointed. Vietnam was one of his biggest issues and yet he was incredibly naive about it. His whole view on the issue was almost childish. He simply kept saying the same thing over and over without thinking of what the consequences could be. I guess since we know what happened it's easier for me to say that, but he still seemed very naive. Hopefully he has gained some mental maturity throughout his life. Then again, he can actually speak, unlike certain presidents.

03-29-2004, 10:01 AM

Dipstick darling (and the rest of you who feel you are holier-than-tho) I will thank you to know that the majority of my posts are in reply to other ppls political threads. Not that I don't from time to time start them I do try to contain them.

That said - this is not a censored board and anyone can post anything they want so you can keep spitting into the wind for all I care but that's all it is.

I can see why you like George Bush so much - you engage in character assassination just like his administration. If I'm guilty of non skiing threads then this whole board is guilty.

Natty started this thread (and he started several others) but I don't see you bashing him. What's up there? You trying to curry his favor?

Come on - don't be such a mouse. If you're going to attack one you've got to attack them all. Otherwise just come out and say what you're really up to and quit hiding like a little boy.

Bwahahahahahahaha - keep them coming!!

Edit: AND I'D LIKE TO ADD ANOTHER THING - the value of community members (IMHO) isn't measured simply by the posts they start but the support they give to other's posts.

Responding with a kind word when a pet is lost, giving encouragement when an injury happens, giving a "Hell Yeah!" to a well written TR, lending a place to stay and playing along with silly posts - this is what the community is about - not trying to tear down one another like some seem to like to do.

It's been said hundreds of times - DON'T READ WHAT YOU DON'T WANT TO - it's called self-control.

Use your "ignore" function for heaven's sake and quit your whining. Take responsibility for yourself and don’t worry about others.

Blurred Elevens

03-29-2004, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by KQ
Dipstick darling (and the rest of you who feel you are holier-than-tho) I will thank you to know that the majority of my posts are in reply to other ppls political threads. Not that I don't from time to time start them I do try to contain them.

That said - this is not a censored board and anyone can post anything they want so you can keep spitting into the wind for all I care but that's all it is.

I can see why you like George Bush so much - you engage in character assassination just like his administration. If I'm guilty of non skiing threads then this whole board is guilty.

Natty started this thread (and he started several others) but I don't see you bashing him. What's up there? You trying to curry his favor?

Come on - don't be such a mouse. If you're going to attack one you've got to attack them all. Otherwise just come out and say what you're really up to and quit hiding like a little boy.

Bwahahahahahahaha - keep them coming!!

KQ-Maybe you should find a political board on the net and post there since you obviously don't contribute to ski stoke here....do you even ski?

SteepnDeep

03-29-2004, 01:01 PM

For you true believers, we get the point! You don't like Bush! Your not voting for him! For the "left of center" lemming club, please stop the self loathing, the whining, the "phony" outrage! If your trying to fit into a liberal sterotype, congratulations, your succeeding. Don't you people get sick with agreeing with each other all the time? How do you wannabe "victims" wake up in the morning? You come across as severely insecure. Maybe instead of blaming Bush for every problem in the world, you should look into the mirror, and find a way to change your pathetic, depressing outlook on life. I got news for you, the POTUS will not be able to help you! Why do your types gravitate toward the Democratic party? You want to know why Bush is probably going to win again? People that use to vote democratic, like myself, are sick of being associated with your pathetic, loser mentality....end of rant..

Viva

03-29-2004, 01:38 PM

Now, this could be an interesting development.

I spoke with some political scientists (they're not real scientists, BTW) last weekend and they agreed that, based on the decreasing amount of exposure for Vice President Cheney along with his generally poor health, signs are pointing to the possibly of Cheney's being replaced on the Bush ticket. Further, these poly scientists predicted that Condi Rice would be the most likely replacement for the Dickster because she's, right now, tight with Bush and is getting tons more exposure than the rest of the President's cabinet. The speculation is that the GOP may try to a Bush-Rice ticket to steal some of the women and black voters from the Democrats. Of course this is all conjecture at the moment and there's the possibility that Condi may get burned badly in the 9/11 hearing. time will tell.

The Bush & the Bitch...scary, eh?

natty dread

03-29-2004, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by SteepnDeep
For you true believers, we get the point! You don't like Bush! Your not voting for him! For the "left of center" lemming club, please stop the self loathing, the whining, the "phony" outrage! If your trying to fit into a liberal sterotype, congratulations, your succeeding. Don't you people get sick with agreeing with each other all the time? How do you wannabe "victims" wake up in the morning? You come across as severely insecure. Maybe instead of blaming Bush for every problem in the world, you should look into the mirror, and find a way to change your pathetic, depressing outlook on life. I got news for you, the POTUS will not be able to help you! Why do your types gravitate toward the Democratic party? You want to know why Bush is probably going to win again? People that use to vote democratic, like myself, are sick of being associated with your pathetic, loser mentality....end of rant..

:rolleyes: Congratulations, steepndeep, for fitting into the right-wing stereotype by resorting to personal attacks instead of addressing the issues presented--just like the shrub administration is doing to Richard Clarke. You know, you didn't HAVE to read or respond to this thread. Welcome to the right-of-center lemming club buddy!
And while I don't blame shrub for "every problem in the world" (more typical right-wing hyperbole), I do hold him responsible for the deaths of almost 600 Americans because of an "imminent threat" that was anything but imminent--and then making a joke about it. On this point, I assure you my outrage is quite real.

SteepnDeep

03-29-2004, 02:31 PM

:rolleyes: Congratulations, steepndeep, for fitting into the right-wing stereotype by resorting to personal attacks instead of addressing the issues presented--just like the shrub administration is doing to Richard Clarke. You know, you didn't HAVE to read or respond to this thread. Welcome to the right-of-center lemming club buddy!
And while I don't blame shrub for "every problem in the world" (more typical right-wing hyperbole), I do hold him responsible for the deaths of almost 600 Americans because of an "imminent threat" that was anything but imminent--and then making a joke about it. On this point, I assure you my outrage is quite real. [/B][/QUOTE]

This is has to be about your 1000th anti-Bush post. When you cry wolf this often, you tend to lose credibility. I think you have reached that point....

DaveTV

03-29-2004, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by natty dread
Originally posted by SteepnDeep
For you true believers, we get the point! You don't like Bush! Your not voting for him! For the "left of center" lemming club, please stop the self loathing, the whining, the "phony" outrage! If your trying to fit into a liberal sterotype, congratulations, your succeeding. Don't you people get sick with agreeing with each other all the time? How do you wannabe "victims" wake up in the morning? You come across as severely insecure. Maybe instead of blaming Bush for every problem in the world, you should look into the mirror, and find a way to change your pathetic, depressing outlook on life. I got news for you, the POTUS will not be able to help you! Why do your types gravitate toward the Democratic party? You want to know why Bush is probably going to win again? People that use to vote democratic, like myself, are sick of being associated with your pathetic, loser mentality....end of rant..

:rolleyes: Congratulations, steepndeep, for fitting into the right-wing stereotype by resorting to personal attacks instead of addressing the issues presented--just like the shrub administration is doing to Richard Clarke. You know, you didn't HAVE to read or respond to this thread. Welcome to the right-of-center lemming club buddy!
And while I don't blame shrub for "every problem in the world" (more typical right-wing hyperbole), I do hold him responsible for the deaths of almost 600 Americans because of an "imminent threat" that was anything but imminent--and then making a joke about it. On this point, I assure you my outrage is quite real.
Not to mentions the THOUSANDS of Americans who will never ski because their friggin ARMS and LEGS are blown off and lives are shattered - and the tens of thousands of Dead and Maimed Iraqis who were guilty of just being Iraqis - What don't you get??

natty dread

03-29-2004, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by SteepnDeep
This is has to be about your 1000th anti-Bush post. When you cry wolf this often, you tend to lose credibility. I think you have reached that point....

C'mon dood, surely you can come up with a better response than this. At least address the point at hand or at least one of the points I've made in one of my "1,000" anti-shrub posts. For example why it was OK for him to make a joke of the missing WMDs, supposedly the reason we went to war in Iraq? Or maybe why it's OK for Condi to appear on every news program out there but not under oath before the American people. Or perhaps why the White House suggested for days that Bush never met with Clarke to tell him to search specifically for a connection between Iraq and 9/11, even after he was told it was Al Queda, not Iraq, who was responsible--but then Condi finally admitted last night, for the first time, that the meeting took place.
I know, I know it's much easier to make a blanket statement that I'm "crying wolf" than to address facts and make arguments. Thinking is soo hard...;)

DDsnake

03-29-2004, 03:15 PM

03-29-2004, 03:20 PM

Nice DDsnake - that just about sums it up.

dipstik

03-29-2004, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by SteepnDeep
Don't you people get sick with agreeing with each other all the time?

http://us.st5.yimg.com/store4.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1786_6700527

hahah no they don't. They have the same tiresome arguments over and over and over and over and over. Unfortunately, they have yet to realize that they are not going to sway the conservatives views and opinions, yet they try, relentlessly.

That being said, there is a lot of skiing stoke here, so enjoy those threads and don't waste your energy in the political one's, you'll just get ragged on. (like I will be for this post, just wait and see)

iceman

03-29-2004, 04:41 PM

Ah, hell, never mind.

Mcwop

03-29-2004, 05:00 PM

On July 29, 1999, Richard Clarke was scheduled to appear before the Senate Special Committee on the Y2K computer scare.

Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) chaired the hearing, and made the announcement that Richard Clarke would not be appearing before the committee -- due to a directive by the National Security Council.

The Clinton White House would not allow Richard Clarke to testify before Congress in 1999, for the same reason the Bush White House is using to deny Dr. Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

iceman

03-29-2004, 05:16 PM

The difference being, obviously, that the Clinton White House did not want to tip our hand to potential enemies as to our preparedness for a future event, while the Bush White House doesn't want to admit to the American public how badly they screwed up over a past event.

Suck on that, proclamation boy.

up an down

03-29-2004, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Mcwop
On July 29, 1999, Richard Clarke was scheduled to appear before the Senate Special Committee on the Y2K computer scare.

Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) chaired the hearing, and made the announcement that Richard Clarke would not be appearing before the committee -- due to a directive by the National Security Council.

The Clinton White House would not allow Richard Clarke to testify before Congress in 1999, for the same reason the Bush White House is using to deny Dr. Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission.
what reason allows rice to be on 89 talk shows and blab about whatever bs she wants to pull over our eyes?.. i wonder how many talk shows clarke went on after clinton forbade him to testify on the y2k scare

Buster Highmen

03-29-2004, 05:26 PM

The Irish Italian has a point in some regard. But the weird thing I don't quite understand is, IceDoods excellent point aside, why do the errors of one boob justify the errors of another?

I may loathe Kerry and most of the Demo spew, but Ashcroft, the end of the 40 hour workweek, the national debt, the meddling of this administration into the private affairs of Americans are a bit much.

I'll go back to dumbing these compoopers to death.

03-29-2004, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by up an down
what reason allows rice to be on 89 talk shows and blab about whatever bs she wants to pull over our eyes?.. i wonder how many talk shows clarke went on after clinton forbabde him to testify on the y2k scare

It seems obvious to me that neither Rice nor Bush relish that thought of having to lie under oath.

natty dread

03-29-2004, 05:30 PM

Mcwop, you're comparing a hearing on the Y2K computer scare to a hearing on the 9/11 terror attacks as justification as to why Condi shouldn't testify? A computer scare versus the worst attack on our nation, ever. That's pretty weak dude. As the 9/11 families have urged and as members of the 9/11 commission, including its co-chair Tom Keane, have asked, with an intelligence failure of this magnitude, Rice should testify under oath. The republicans' rationalizations for keeping her testimony private grow more desperate-sounding with each passing day. Rumsfeld testified, so did Tenet--in a case of this magnitude, Rice owes it to our country to testify.
But the shrub administration's actions in this matter are not surprising, considering they opposed the 9/11 commission from the get-go (even though the 9/11 families wanted it), resisted the commission's attempts to get a 2 month extension (which the 9/11 families wanted), and have engaged in stonewalling and foot-dragging every step of the way (not according to me, according to the 9/11 commission, many of whom are republicans). I can find the appropriate quotes from the 9/11 commission on bush administration stonewalling of the commission's work if you want--trust me, they're out there.

Dexter Rutecki

03-29-2004, 05:35 PM

SteepnDeep

03-29-2004, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by natty dread
Originally posted by SteepnDeep
This is has to be about your 1000th anti-Bush post. When you cry wolf this often, you tend to lose credibility. I think you have reached that point....

C'mon dood, surely you can come up with a better response than this. At least address the point at hand or at least one of the points I've made in one of my "1,000" anti-shrub posts. For example why it was OK for him to make a joke of the missing WMDs, supposedly the reason we went to war in Iraq? Or maybe why it's OK for Condi to appear on every news program out there but not under oath before the American people. Or perhaps why the White House suggested for days that Bush never met with Clarke to tell him to search specifically for a connection between Iraq and 9/11, even after he was told it was Al Queda, not Iraq, who was responsible--but then Condi finally admitted last night, for the first time, that the meeting took place.
I know, I know it's much easier to make a blanket statement that I'm "crying wolf" than to address facts and make arguments. Thinking is soo hard...;)

Facts: Saddam, his sadistic sons, and his legions of human defects

used chemical weapons to poison to death thousands of their own people.

murdered, tortured, and terrorized hundreds of thousands of people.

started 2 major wars killing over a million people.

was constructing a nuclear facility to build a nuclear bomb

paid suicide bombers famlies money every time one of them blew up a bus full of school children.

attempted to assasinate the President of the U.S

As of today:

WMD's? Other than the worthless U.N., what sane person would give the benefit of the doubt to these cretins. I believe the jury is still out on this one, but, either way, at least we will eventually know for sure. No room for error on this one.

We found extensive and multiple mass graves of tortured and murdered people. Some other mass murdering prick did this in the 30's and 40's. What was his name again?

Saddams sons are dead, most of his henchmen have been captured or killed, and this piece of shit won't be hurting anyone anymore. Works for me....

The rest of the yappity yap is all political bullshit. What would Gore or Kerry have done if they were in the same position. My guess is NOTHING!!! Now that's what I would call outrage!

Anyway, I didnt have you in the lemming crowd, I figured you were a true believer?:cool: Back to lurk mode....later

Dexter Rutecki

03-29-2004, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Mcwop
On July 29, 1999, Richard Clarke was scheduled to appear before the Senate Special Committee on the Y2K computer scare.

Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) chaired the hearing, and made the announcement that Richard Clarke would not be appearing before the committee -- due to a directive by the National Security Council.

The Clinton White House would not allow Richard Clarke to testify before Congress in 1999, for the same reason the Bush White House is using to deny Dr. Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

Both Clinton and Carter had their NSA's testify before Congress. There is no reason Rice can't voluntarily testify--it would pose no threat to the separation of powers or executive privilege.

up an down

03-29-2004, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
Dumbfucks like you are the reason morons like Bush get elected.
that and the fact that jeb bush as governor of florida hired a company to update the official voting lists in florida before the 2000 election, and the company threw off the names of thousands of legal voters.. naturally jeb bush nor the company he hired has never been charged with violating the civil rights of the voters who were disenfranchised... the dumbfucks are fooled by the smartfucks that don't mind using illegal tactics to stay in power and by the richfucks that bribe the smartfucks to pass laws to help them stay rich.

repeat

03-29-2004, 05:49 PM

I truly hope the dem party can come up with something better than "bush sucks". I think most would agree that Bushes methods are questionable if not fraudulent, but we seriously need to see the democrats step up here. Present viable solutions to the problem, not bitch and moan about it. Hopefully Kerry will have changed from vietnam and realize that we don't live in a utopian society.

03-29-2004, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by SteepnDeep
Facts: Saddam, his sadistic sons, and his legions of human defects

used chemical weapons to poison to death thousands of their own people.

murdered, tortured, and terrorized hundreds of thousands of people.

Do you know why, in 1991, Saddam went after all those Kurds?

For decades the U.S.supported the Kurds in their struggle against Saddam. Washington used the Kurds when it wanted to hurt Saddam and then dropped them when their usefulness had run out but by then it was too late for them. Without US fire support Saddam attacked them like ducks in a shooting gallery. Those that survived were forced to flee to the hills. Their fate sealed by George Bush Sr. and Co.

dubu

03-29-2004, 05:53 PM

So a question to the lefties:

please refrain form criticizing the current policies.

what would have been an appropriate plan for a post 9/11 reaction? A real plan not some ideal we will get the countries of the world to work together crap, name one time when the world cooperated without significant direct pressure.

Also if a policy of containment for Iraq was used, how? With whose resources and for how long? If the containment involved embargos for how long would they last? Most importantly how big of an affect would such embargos have on a country of 22 million. Don’t forget that keeping out wmd/weapons technology is not that straight forward, it would most likely have to be a blanked embargo on medical goods, electronics, fertilizers, etc..

So would say a 50 year (approx time till Hussein sons would be out of office) embargo on Iraq create more or less terrorism?

repeat

03-29-2004, 06:13 PM

well that ended discussion quickly

Dr. Gaper

03-29-2004, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
Way to go. You fit in perfectly with the knee-jerk right wing idiot club. Dumbfucks like you are the reason morons like Bush get elected.

Were you trying to be ironic there, "dumbfuck"?

Tippster

03-29-2004, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by dubu
So a question to the lefties:

please refrain form criticizing the current policies.

what would have been an appropriate plan for a post 9/11 reaction? A real plan not some ideal we will get the countries of the world to work together crap, name one time when the world cooperated without significant direct pressure.

Also if a policy of containment for Iraq was used, how? With whose resources and for how long? If the containment involved embargos for how long would they last? Most importantly how big of an affect would such embargos have on a country of 22 million. Don’t forget that keeping out wmd/weapons technology is not that straight forward, it would most likely have to be a blanked embargo on medical goods, electronics, fertilizers, etc..

So would say a 50 year (approx time till Hussein sons would be out of office) embargo on Iraq create more or less terrorism? Well, apples & oranges... according to this president's (and the prior THREE as well) terrorist EXPERT, invading Iraq was the WORST THING TO DO. I tend to believe the guy I and all other taxpayers have been paying to know this shit for 4 administrations. Please do not forget: Richard Clarke worked for 3 Republican Presidents, only 1 Democrat. He was so awful everyone kept him... right.

Personally I have no problems with us going after UBL and the Taliban. What I DO have a problem with is bailing on Afghanistan completely to pursue these guys' agenda. Whoever was surprised that we were going after Saddam sooner or later should be ashamed. Ferchrissakes - EVERY single person in Bush's cabinet has a direct link to the first Gulf War. We were joking in 2001 when the Senate "confirmations" were taking place about WHEN the US would invade Iraq, not IF. This was 7 months before 9/11.

Also, if you want to argue that we haven't "abandoned Afghanistan completely" - my words - you're actually right. The administration TRIED TO before the second Gulf War, but congress overrode the president's budget and AGAINST HIS WISHES included $200mill. for Afghanistan. The president had this money earmarked for the invasion of Iraq - his words. He almost threatened to VETO this new version of the budget.

Well, include a failed presidency in Mr. Bush's long list of failures, including bankrupting 3 businesses and one state. I hope he was a better Cheerleader than a leader of men.

Dexter Rutecki

03-29-2004, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Walter Sobchak
Also, I would have caught bin Laden by now, videotaped Mike Tyson beating the shit out of him and biting his ear off, broadcast it on pay per view, sold DVDs on a prime time infomercial, and used the proceeds to cover at least part of our structural budget deficit.

Sobchack for president!!

Blurred Elevens

03-29-2004, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
Sobchack for president!!

You could be his running mate and the bumperstickers would read:

Sobchak and Nutsack-2004.

Tippster

03-29-2004, 07:14 PM

Why thank you, Walter! You too the words right out of my head! Neato-Ramjet! :D

natty dread

03-29-2004, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by SteepnDeep
Facts: Saddam, his sadistic sons, and his legions of human defects
used chemical weapons to poison to death thousands of their own people.
murdered, tortured, and terrorized hundreds of thousands of people.
started 2 major wars killing over a million people.
was constructing a nuclear facility to build a nuclear bomb
paid suicide bombers famlies money every time one of them blew up a bus full of school children.
attempted to assasinate the President of the U.S
As of today:
WMD's? Other than the worthless U.N., what sane person would give the benefit of the doubt to these cretins. I believe the jury is still out on this one, but, either way, at least we will eventually know for sure. No room for error on this one.
We found extensive and multiple mass graves of tortured and murdered people. Some other mass murdering prick did this in the 30's and 40's. What was his name again?
Saddams sons are dead, most of his henchmen have been captured or killed, and this piece of shit won't be hurting anyone anymore. Works for me....
The rest of the yappity yap is all political bullshit. What would Gore or Kerry have done if they were in the same position. My guess is NOTHING!!! Now that's what I would call outrage!
Anyway, I didnt have you in the lemming crowd, I figured you were a true believer?:cool: Back to lurk mode....later

I give you shrub supporters one thing--you parrot the administration's reasons for going to war flawlessly. The problem is these ARE NOT THE REASONS WE WERE TOLD WE WERE PUTTING TROOPS IN HARM'S WAY! We were warned of "imminent threats," mushroom clouds, connections between Al Queda and Iraq were cleverly suggested, 9/11 and Iraq were mentioned in the same sentence numerous times. These are the reasons that I, at first, supported the war in Iraq.
There are many murderous dictators to choose from if we want to go to war. The problem is, this particular one did not pose an imminent threat to us and he was not responsible for killing 3,000 people on 9/11. Yet he is the one on whom, even with our limited resources, we have spent $200 billion with no end in sight--but tax cuts for the rich, no problem. And now you notice that bin Laden, the man Bush promised to get "dead or alive," is not mentioned so much anymore and is still free. He is "just one man," as shrub and rummy are fond of saying. And our ports, railroads, highrises in major cities, etc are still just as vulnerable to terrorist attack as they ever were, maybe even more so considering all the fire department funding that has been cut by these assholes. And now shrub has the gall to joke about the lack of wmd.
How many former republican administration big wigs are going to have to come forward until you right-wingers believe how fucked this administration is. O'Neil (yeah he really need money from a book) and Clarke (who has served both republicans and dems) both are trying to tell us something. And the shrub admin. keeps attacking their character instead of addressing the facts. How much more obvious can it all be?

DaveTV

03-29-2004, 08:12 PM

and by the way - she's single, gents.....Grrrrr:eek:
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/26/911.commission/top.rice.tue.jpg

Blurred Elevens

03-29-2004, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by natty dread

Blah blah blah blah A BUNCH OF SHIT I DIDN'T READ blah blah blah blah I hate bush blah blah blah [/B]

I bet if Bush legalized weed, you'd vote for him eh?

natty dread

03-29-2004, 08:45 PM

9/11 Panel's Chiefs Want Rice to Testify Under Oath
By PHILIP SHENON and RICHARD W. STEVENSON

Published: March 30, 2004

WASHINGTON, March 29 — The chairman and vice chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said on Monday that they would ask Condoleezza Rice to testify under oath in any future questioning because of discrepancies between her statements and those made in sworn testimony by President Bush's former counterterrorism chief.

"I would like to have her testimony under the penalty of perjury," said the commission's chairman, Thomas H. Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey, in comments that reflected the panel's exasperation with the White House and Ms. Rice, the president's national security adviser.

Ms. Rice has refused to testify in public before the commission, even as she has granted numerous interviews about its investigation.

Members of the commission, Democrats and Republicans alike, say they are angered by her interviews. They say that the White House has made a major political blunder by continuing to assert executive privilege in blocking public testimony by Ms. Rice while continuing to use her as the principal public spokeswoman in defending the Bush's administration's actions before Sept. 11.

"I find it reprehensible that the White House is making her the fall guy for this legalistic position," said John F. Lehman, Navy secretary in the Reagan administration and a Republican member of the commission. "I've published two books on executive privilege, and I know that executive privilege has to bend to reality."

While there is precedent for the White House argument that incumbent national security advisers and other White House advisers should not be required to testify in public, constitutional scholars say that the position is based only on past practice, not law, and that presidents have repeatedly waived the privilege, especially at times of scandal or other intense political pressure.

shmerham

03-30-2004, 06:48 AM

Not to mentions the THOUSANDS of Americans who will never ski because their friggin ARMS and LEGS are blown off and lives are shattered - and the tens of thousands of Dead and Maimed Iraqis who were guilty of just being Iraqis - What don't you get??

Actually, they can thanks to adaptive skiing programs. These were started by Army Hospitals using money from the ever-dreaded defense budget. Today they are non-profits; funded by government grants, but mostly by evil corporations. Maine Handicapped Skiing, the only free-to-participate program in the country never would've started without the anti-christ himself, Leslie B Otten. To this day, he's still a major contributor, despite having no vested interest in ASC or Sunday River.

I don't understand why accountability is only an issue with Bush and the U.S. and not Iraq and the U.N. Shouldn't Iraq be held accountable for violating resolution upon resolution? Shouldn't the U.N. be held accountable for letting Saddam milk their system? As the strongest nation, shouldn't we be accountable for maintaining accountability? (I'm starting to sound like Rumsfeld now; I apologize).

I've heard that Giuliani would replace Cheney. He would certainly help the swing vote, but he could drive away some of the neo-cons.

natty dread

03-30-2004, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by shmerham
I don't understand why accountability is only an issue with Bush and the U.S. and not Iraq and the U.N. Shouldn't Iraq be held accountable for violating resolution upon resolution? Shouldn't the U.N. be held accountable for letting Saddam milk their system? As the strongest nation, shouldn't we be accountable for maintaining accountability? (I'm starting to sound like Rumsfeld now; I apologize).

True, accountability is important and none of us shrub bashers have ever said Saddam or the UN should have been let off the hook for their lack of accountability. I'm still seething over the UN failure to act appropriately in Bosnia and Rwanda. But should we have gone to war and sacrificed American lives over Saddam's failure to comply with UN resolutions? Would war have been authorized by Congress and supported by the American people if this was the main reason given (along with Saddam being an evil dictator and all the rest)? This is something we'll never know, because we were told (falsely) that there was definitely wmd, that the threat to our country was imminent, and that 9/11 was somehow connected to Iraq when no connection existed.

Tippster

03-30-2004, 09:29 AM

Just to throw this into the mix: The country with the most UN resolutions against it: Israel.

When do we go in? Oh, wait, "we" are already there, at least our money and technology is... :(

horizon

03-30-2004, 09:47 AM

news just in: the administration backtracked and Rice will testify in public under oath.

EPSkis

03-30-2004, 10:31 AM

Newsflash: Political threads suck.
I'm tense enough as it is.

Amusing interview on the Tom Leykas show the other day. (sp? It's the only decent talk radio show I can get on the way home.)

He's got your typical white 20-something female who called into the show. She's spouting on & on about how "if" Gore had been elected and Bush hadn't "stolen" the election, yada-yada.....That "we'd see some real CHANGE!"

Tom politely asks what "change" she's referring to, considering if we'd gotten GORE, we certainly shouldn't be expecting "change", as Gore's simply a less affable version of Clinton, and that their policies across the board are/were largely one & the same.

Her response? "Well then ~ We'll see major changes when KERRY gets elected!" (You could just hear the GLEE in her voice!)

Once again, Leykas asks her to define the "changes" we should expect from a Kerry election. For example, what "changes" do you think Kerry would effect in Foreign Policy, what "changes" should we expect in the "War on Terrorism", or whether there will continue to BE a "war on terrorism"? What dramatic "changes" should we expect with regard to the environment? (etc, etc - he lists several more...)

Her response? (nervous 20-something giggle.) Well! (nervous 20-something giggle.) You know - CHANGES! (nervous 20-something giggle.)

Leykas: (Thanks her for calling & ends the call.) "There you have it folks, if only a couple thousand more of THEM had voted in the last election...." :rolleyes:

It was as amusing as it was sad.

dubu

03-30-2004, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Walter Sobchak

And for your question on how more years of Saddam would affect terrorism, please point out the concrete evidince linking Saddam's regime to international terrorism (and by that I mean groups with global, anti-US aspirations, Al Queda, et al, not Palestinian terrorism which we know Saddam financially supported and which nearly every middle class family in Saudi Arabia supports too.)

As for Saddam and Al Queda, I really don’t think they had anything in common or ever cooperated. That argument the they are/were is pure bs and should have never been brought up, in my opinion. However what I was referring to is that in the future there was, in my opinion, a strong chance of Al Queda elements forming in Iraq. This cooperation would happen without Saddams approval though, I don’t think he would want another organization with power running around Iraq..

My reason for thinking this is: Under sanctions, no matter how smart, the general population quality of live decreases. This in turn will cause resentment. This resentment will be pointed directly at us and not the UN, because we are the only superpower. In turn this resentment will turn into anger, just put yourself in the average joe Iraqi's shoes. So now you have a country of people strongly resentful to the US, add some incitements by say Al Quada or any other far out quasi religious organization and you have a recipe for bad shit.

My point, in the long run Iraq under sanctions is far worse than Iraq w/o sanction. Yea the toll on human life is tragic, however sanctions would have killed a large amount of people also. For example: How many people in a country almost as populous as Canada would die form cancer, because they could not get any form of radiation treatment, there are more examples

DDsnake

03-30-2004, 11:37 AM

The presidential election, Bush vs. Kerry, what a joke! Two privileged plutocrats, two psychotic perverts from the same demonic college fraternity, neither ever had to hold a job, each advocating continuing crimes against humanity, even against their own people. And to make matters worse, they no longer count the votes honestly. The computer spits out a predetermined total, and the TV whores tell you to believe it. And just like in the election itself, you have no real choice.

Two spoiled children of privilege, born into incomprehensible wealth, constantly gathering more as they go on their immoral ways, devising ever more evil strategies by which to fleece the slaves of the world, preparing to divide America into armed camps, all the while taking their lead from the evil Israelis, who build walls against humanity and murder whomever they please. The few people who try to point out the injustice are either prohibited from speaking or thrown into jail without trial, or outright murdered. The new American way is the old Israeli way. But Americans embrace it, as they continue their sleepwalking march toward slavery and oblivion. Cheering with empty eyes as they go.

Does it not strike you as odd " assuming you are a thinking, feeling human being not yet too retarded by flouride, chemtrails, food additives, antidepressants and demonically engineered food that will eventually poison you to death " that there is not a single principled public figure in America who has pointed out that America's rape of Iraq violates every international law and moral precept that has ever been written by the great minds of the past? That the dispersal of uranium all over Central Asia will kill millions? That the clumsy coverup of the inside job of mass murder on 9/11 was the ultimate betrayal of all Americans?

What ARE Americans doing? Cowering in their undefendable homes and waiting for the end?

Does it not strike you as odd that no one speaks out about America's crimes against the world? Against poor people everywhere? Against its own citizens?

Now the real deal is on the table. A New Orleans judge has ruled that the cops can invade your own home without a warrant. That's the end of the Fourth Amendment, a citizen's protection against unreasonable search and seizure, the very basis of freedom in America. This is merely the expected verification of the Patriot Act, that Soviet-style law that allows the government to control every aspect of your life. Now, no one is safe from American tyranny. 1984 has finally arrived.

And no one speaks out against it. How dumbed down we have become. Nobody even paid attention to the recent 9/11 conference in San Francisco, which was sparsely attended. Same with the recent peace marches marking the first anniversary of the American invasion of Iraq. But that may be because participants were afraid to ask the hard questions, intimidated as they were by a choking climate of mindless flag-waving that refuses to consider the real evidence or challenge the lies that are being told every day by our bought-off media.

The 9/11 critics and those who marched with signs merely nibbled around the edges of the problem, pointing out inconsistencies here and anomalies there. They didn't come out screaming for blood, for retribution, for justice, that America's governmental system is a criminal enterprise that kills innocent people on a daily basis. And as a result, the thugs in power just ignored them and kept telling their same old lies.

There is no evidence Arab hijackers did the dirty deed on 9/11. If there was, don't you think they would have released it, would have trumpeted it to the skies, and said, "Look, here is the proof we were telling the truth." If they had that evidence, you can be sure they would release it. But they haven't released it, which means they don't have it. Forget about all this barking about Richard Clarke and Condoleeza Rice and what Bush knew and when he might have known it. These are all side issues meant to distract you from the real issue.

The real issue is that Arab hijackers DIDN'T do it, or we would have heard the evidence by now, two and a half years later.

So the real question is not about the 9/11 panel, or who said what to whom. The real question is who did it. And it wasn't Arab hijackers. So who does that leave?

DDsnake

03-30-2004, 11:39 AM

America is a criminal state, flouting international law and laughing about it. Our president makes jokes about the lies he told to enrich his crony corporate accomplices with the scam in Iraq. He makes jokes about the lies he told that cost the lives of hundreds of American service people, not to mention tens of thousands of innocent civilians abroad. He makes jokes about it. And most Americans laugh with him. And wave their flags. And laugh as they break the law.

There is no law in America now. Only tyranny. Only bought-off judges who allow the rich to steal from the poor, and imprison the poor who break no law at all. At the same time they open the borders so hungry immigrants from Third World disaster countries (disasters engineered by oppression from the United States) can stream into the country and lower the standard of living for everyone else. Except the rich patricians who can get away with anything. They are allowed to commit crimes because it's profitable, and they pay off the judges and politicians who allow them to keep doing it.

You should no longer be nursing the delusion that Americans are suddenly going to awaken and rectify the injustices, and America is going to suddenly return to the bastion of peace and freedom it always insisted it was. It's not going to happen. Too much blood, too many toxic substances and greasy lies have passed over the dam, have been vomited all over the floor of public discussion by those who don't tell the truth about anything.

Nobody in the government is telling the truth about anything, and it has been going on for a long time.

Two recent examples have really stuck in my craw. The first was Michel Chossudovsky's story about the three British prisoners released from Guantanamo. Chossudovsky revealed that while we were bombing Afghanistan, the Taliban we were trying to kill were flown out on an American plane with the Pakistani army while gung-ho U.S. gunners continued to kill innocent civilians with their high-tech toys from high in the sky. Rumsfeld, realizing he needed to fill up Guantanamo, had the Pakistanis conduct a roundup of innocent civilians from refugee camps and shipped them to Cuba, where he has supervised the torture and interrogations of people he knew were innocent, like those unlucky British boys, for more than two years.

That makes me want to vomit. What America has become " poisoned and psychotic " simply makes me want to vomit. And there is not a single soul with any power in Washington who will face these issues. That also makes me want to vomit, and makes me very ashamed of my country.

The other story that threw me over the edge happened yesterday when I was researching various chemtrail material and I happened across Mary Sparrowdancer's magnum opus on fluoride, called "The Battle of Darkness and Light" (everyone should read this at http://www.rense.com/general45/bll.htm ). Before she ever got to the really bad part of how the poisonous nuclear waste product called fluoride was put in America's drinking water (can you imagine such a bonehead, suicidal stunt?), she described an episode from the 1980s in which a panel of health experts was commissioned to devise a food chart that would enable Americans to have healthier diets. After they finished their studies and concluded that a healthy diet should be based on plenty of fruits and vegetables, the government bureaucrats shifted all the data and published a document that said healthy diets should be based on heavy consumption of cereals and starches.

The medical results of this prostituted campaign, 20 years later, has resulted in a variety of epidemics: thyroid problems, dental disasters, obesity, and many other maladies that have all reaped trillions in profits for the pharmaceutical industry, which of course is the incestuous first cousin to the petroleum industry. To top it all off, after a long run where gastrointestinal medicine was the leading moneymaker for the establishment drug pushers, a new product has leaped to the top " antidepressants. And it's all traceable back to that cynical decision by the government to change America's eating habits by changing the data that had been produced by health experts.

That's the kind of integrity we get from Washington. Forget about depleted uranium, funky vaccinations, and needless wars that take our sons and daughters from us for no good reason. The government has been poisoning us with its basic medical information for years, so I guess bombing another country for illegitimate reasons should not exactly come as a surprise to us at this late date, I mean, after all the decades of lies that have been told to us about everything.

I mean, if we accept the poisoning of ourselves without much complaint, how could I be getting upset that we're killing people all over the world for reasons that are proven lies? As I said before in a previous essay, we are much farther down the road to hell than I thought.

And I wonder why I write these words, since there is not a single person, either in the Congress or on television, who is currently pointing out that America is doing anything wrong in any area. Only that one rich person is not being very patriotic by criticizing the way another rich person has chosen to kill tens of thousands of people, and that that first rich person would have done the same thing, but he would have done it differently.

Many people get upset when I talk about these things. Yet in the public sphere, I see no one talking honestly. Not a single American public figure talking honestly. About anything.

John Kaminski is the author of "America's Autopsy Report," a collection of his Internet essays posted on hundreds of websites around the world. More recently he has written a booklet titled "The Day America Died: Why You Shouldn't Believe the Official Story of What Happened on September 11, 2001." More information about both of these books can be found at http://www.johnkaminski.com/

splat

03-30-2004, 11:43 AM

DDSnake - thanks for posting that. I'm a firm believer that Americans know almost nothing about what kind of an assfukk we're in for.

03-30-2004, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by splat
DDSnake - thanks for posting that. I'm a firm believer that Americans know almost nothing about what kind of an assfukk we're in for.

You mean - w/ or w/o lube?

shmerham

03-30-2004, 11:58 AM

I pre-fer syrup.

Tippster

03-30-2004, 12:12 PM

Well, if Mr. Kaminsky is so convinced of the evil nature of the US - he's certainly:

-Free to express his opinion
-Free to leave.

No one is keeping his whining ass here - and this is coming from one of the more liberal posters on this board. Foaming at the mouth like that accomplishes NOTHING. Not a F.U.C.K.I.N.G. thing, other than raising the level of ennui in this country.

Yeahyeah, Power to the People, Che Guevara, remember the Alamo, whatever. You want to change the system? Work WITHIN it, don't just take the lazy route and rail against it from the sidelines. People like Mr. Bush make me angry, people like Mr. Kaminsky make me puke.

Mcwop

03-30-2004, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by natty dread
Mcwop, you're comparing a hearing on the Y2K computer scare to a hearing on the 9/11 terror attacks as justification as to why Condi shouldn't testify? A computer scare versus the worst attack on our nation, ever. That's pretty weak dude. As the 9/11 families have urged and as members of the 9/11 commission, including its co-chair Tom Keane, have asked, with an intelligence failure of this magnitude, Rice should testify under oath. The republicans' rationalizations for keeping her testimony private grow more desperate-sounding with each passing day. Rumsfeld testified, so did Tenet--in a case of this magnitude, Rice owes it to our country to testify.
But the shrub administration's actions in this matter are not surprising, considering they opposed the 9/11 commission from the get-go (even though the 9/11 families wanted it), resisted the commission's attempts to get a 2 month extension (which the 9/11 families wanted), and have engaged in stonewalling and foot-dragging every step of the way (not according to me, according to the 9/11 commission, many of whom are republicans). I can find the appropriate quotes from the 9/11 commission on bush administration stonewalling of the commission's work if you want--trust me, they're out there.

No, just offering balance that other president's make the same priviledge claims - not equating the events. Condi testifying on this will shed zero light on the situation. This is a political hearing and nothing more. I might add it is being used to promote a book as well - if Clarke wants credibility then give up 100% of the book proceeds. This whole hearing disgusts me. Both sides are using this for partisan advantage.