Not everyone is a political junkie, and even few political junkies even like reading the government reports on this or that. However, when it comes to war, shouldn’t we all have some sort of documented list of reasons for war as well as periodic updates? I don’t just mean members of Congress (the body that declares and authorizes war) or the President (the man who gets several detailed, classified updates throughout every day). I mean every American. I’d like to see us all get copies of it in the mail with the checks the Democrats’ Congress is sending us for economic stimulus.
Almost half a year before the invasion of Iraq, on Oct 2, 2002 a classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was presented to Congress per the “demands” of Congressional Democrats. The Washington Post reported at the time that only about a dozen senators and a handful of representatives signed in for access to read the classified list of reasons to authorize force against Iraq. Two days later, a vastly smaller version was declassified and more members of Congress read this one. They griped that the “caveats” about the certainty regarding various concerns were not included, but what they didn’t tell their constituents was that those concerns were in the classified version that they were too busy/lazy to sign in and read.
Years later, another NIE was”demanded” by Congressional Democrats so that they could gauge the progress or lack of in Iraq. Again, a classified version was presented to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and a declassified version released, but few signed in to read the classified version, most ignored the declassified version, and only those parts that could be twisted to support their individual political agendas were released to the press.
Years later-again, another NIE was “demanded by Congressional Democrats to identify threats to the nation and gauge progress in Iraq. As before, it was largely ignored after being demanded, and what wasn’t ignored was distorted, half-quoted, misquoted, and misrepresented to fit political agendas-by Democrats and Republicans.
The last time an NIE was presented to Congress, the Director of National Intelligence and representatives from the 16 intelligence agencies that put together these reports all made themselves available for a full day of briefings to Congress. No one showed up except a few Republicans and fewer Democrats. Speaker Pelosi and others were in Syria meeting with one of the state sponsors of the Iraqi insurgency instead.
This week Democratic members of Congress “demanded” (again) that the most recent NIE be declassified and presented to the public.
As if anyone cared to read the first one and see the reasons for the war in Iraq, or the subsequent ones that explained the dangers of withdrawal as well as the other regional threats.
Why “demand”? Why even bother? I mean, I LOVE reading these independent, bi-partisan reports, but it doesn’t change policy, policy-makers’ positions, or political activists rantings. So why bother? Oh yeah…it’s an election year, and politicians need to play politics with America’s intelligence reporting by exaggerating and dismissing the threats around the world lest they fail to misled constituents and fail to be re-elected.
You know what, I think that a selection of such things should be required reading in our high schools. I, for one, use this sort of information to evaluate the policies/performance of our elected/appointed officials, as well as a knowledge base from which to evaluate the proposals and suggestions of candidates for elected office.
This is of particular importance when the agency(-ies) involved have a history of blowing the call. Remember the “intelligence failure?” Well, I sure want to see as much unclassified info as possible on their work. Of course, I’m the guy who read the DIA handbook on the DPRK military just because it was available, so I’m in the same “junkie” mode as you…
Hey, they don’t need to know what’s going on. They just have to pass the laws the country has to uphold.
Pretty scary thought
Why don’t they say who actually signed to read the reports. I think that would tell people a lot. But, then again, how many people go to the Senate or House of Representatives web-sites to see how their respective legislators voted?
Tom
“Why don’t they say who actually signed to read the reports. I think that would tell people a lot. “
I saw a report on that about a year ago, actually. I doubt much has changed in the Dem’s behavior. Sorry I don’t have the reference. I thought I bookmarked it, but apparently either didn’t, or misfiled it. Too bad, because it was a very detailed account. In summary, it was primarily the Dems who didn’t read reports or attend the meetengs they themselves demanded.
Yes, it would be nice to have those details repeated more often so they are easier to find. If anyone else has that, I would like to get the ref again because I could have used it a few times, and it would probably help to have it in the future.
see video: See Body of War, Hear Body of War
Help Phil Donahue promote this important movie, directed by Phil Donahue and Ellen Spiro, send this video link to others to make people aware of Tomas Young’s story.
http://representativepress.googlepages.com/bodyofwar
Given the Bush Administration track record of cooking the books, I would say that demanding updates is a very good idea.
I would have thought that the decision to go to war was a no-brainer, given that it had been the UN that had determined that Iraq had possessed WMDs, then sanctioned Iraq after what we later learned was an Iraqi conspiracy with the French weapons inspectors to hide the weapons and thwart the inspections, all occurring AFTER Iraq ACTUALLY USED its WMDs. (Remember Chemical Ali and the WMD gassing of those who tried to rise up and overthrow Saddam after Gulf War I?) Having USED them, it stood to reason that just maybe they might have had them. Who else but a Dim needs a report?
Ironically, all Saddam had to do was parade out the records of the destruction of his known stockpile of WMDs at the last minute, and all our plans would have been for naught (or actually wildly successful). He didn’t and, naturally, we were.
And to those who think that we aren’t in Iraq fighting al-qaeda, its named ‘al-qaeda in Iraq’ for a reason. Care to guess why?
And, had George W. Bush managed the occupation even remotely competently, that would have been the end of it. But he didn’t.
Don’t worry Steve…none of us will vote for him in the fall. If he is the problem, then the next President will obviously bring success (unless he chooses to pander to defeatists instead, but that’s doubtful as the cost of retreat is now more than the cost of staying).
Promising that they will not vote for George W. Bush again in November 2008 is how Conservatives absolve themselves, 100%, for any accountability whatsoever for their unquestioning support of George W. Bush as he bungled his way through the death of more than 4,000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis during the occupation of Iraq.
However it will not stop Conservatives from continuing Bush Administration “Stay the Course” mistakes through the administration of “President John McCain.”
I’m sure that, should we be conversing again during the last year of John McCain’s second term as President in 2016, you will be making the same easy, glib, unconcerned comment about not voting for John McCain in November 2016… While we are hearing about the fourth (or fifth, sixth or seventh) “surge” in Iraq and “this time will be different”. And the ten thousandth American death goes by. Without a Conservative care in the world…. Other than electing another Republican to replace him.
It is physically impossible for any Conservative, anywhere, any time to type the words, “President Bush is accountable for the botched occupation of Iraq”. And, until you, or any other Conservative can acknowledge that fact, you will defend the man, and make joking, yuk-filled comments about the deaths that have occuperd in Iraq, due entirely to bungling that was performe by George W. Bush’s direct reports, as he (Bush) did NOTHING to make a different, other than disparaging the partiotism of anyone who mentioned the incompetence.
Until you can prove that the occupation has been as “botched” as your opinion claims…well, until such a time comes you will be correct; many people (not just conservatives) will not say or type: “President Bush is accountable for the botched occupation of Iraq”
Lacking an example of a counter-insurgency operation that has gone better than this one, your claim is just an opinion without historical merit or fact to back it up.
Great news!!!
Stevie O’PinkPanties is back.
We will all soon be regaled with whining, complaining, and amateurish Moonbattery the likes of which we haven’t seen since the last time he emerged from Mommy’s basement.
So. Conservatives now maintain that the occupation of Iraq is a raging success? That just proves my point that Conservatives remain loyal to George W. Bush, 100%, to the very end.
The proof is the difference between the promises of the Bush Administration (“If we are in Iraq for six months, that will be too long”) and reality. The bi-annual “we are turning the corner in Iraq” stories that came out, and Conservatives believed 100% also points to deceit and incompetence. Of course, Conservatives, 100% loyal to President Bush are required to pretend that the occupation of iraq is an unqualified example of the complete brilliance of the Bush Administration and its competence.
Your second comment was just another example of Cosnervatives throwing out personal isults and snide comments as a supstitute for debate, sort of like a fifth grade schoolyard. For Conservatives, war and death in Iraq is viewed in the terms of children’s games, with no more concern for the people who die for those blunders than if it were a game of “tag”. The Ivory Tower from which Conservatives send out their pronouncements to the world has insulated them from any sense of the costs of their opinoins on people in the realy world.
Steve,
You are a moron. Every lie you wrote above proves how wrong you are.
NOTHING you said reflect reality. I DO have problems with President Bush, and have stated them before. HOWEVER I WAS IN IRAQ and saw members of the State Dept brag about sabotaging our efforts. I see the media MAKE UP stories in front of my face and then had to call my pregnant wife so she would know I was alive. I saw the left make statments and the terrorists parrot them (and vice-versa). I KNOW who to blame and you as a leftist, will gladly vote for their party in November.
Afterwords, you will never hold them accountable (just as you do not now) and continue your insane projectionism towards conservatives.
I do not like McCain. However, I detest the socialist Democratic party so I have little choice but to vote against them by voting for McCain. At least I will most likely not need an absentee ballot this year. So unless the Democrats refuse to count Michigan’s votes in the general elections, my vote should count this time.
No Steve, it was not a “raging” successs. HOWEVER, it is a success, despite the left’s continued sabotage efforts.
Who said it was a “raging success”? Do we have a choice between Steve’s “botched” “incompetence” and “raging success”? I agree with Chris (not only because he’s been there and Steve hasn’t),”No Steve, it was not a “raging” successs. HOWEVER, it is a success, despite the left’s contunied sabotage efforts.”
Hey when did Philly Steve crawl back out from under the rock!
I thought we were overquota for moonbats, what with Skye55110 and all, but there’s always room for one more.
(my screwup!)
We all do it Doug. Maaaaaaaaan, you had me freakin’ though. I thought I’d fubar’d wholesale. Kinda ironic though that there can be so much confusion of which NIE was demanded and blown off. It’s happened so much over the past 6 yrs that it’s barely news anymore. The only unique aspect to it is the specific date.
No harm or foul mon ami
man, i don’t know what happened!! i have no idea how i got back to April!
–sorry. my apologies for the mistake.
Scott: “No Steve, it was not a “raging” successs. HOWEVER, it is a success, despite the left’s contunied sabotage efforts.”
As usual, Conservatives always insist on judging Liberals in a world of black and white. Because Liberals cannot propose a withdrawl from the Iraqi Civil War that will not 100% guarantee George W. Bush’s “Shining Example of Democracy” in Iraq, Liberals are “defeatist”.
However, when it comes time to evaluate how well George W. Bush has performed, everything is shades of gray and President Bush’s performance passes Conservative criteria to be a “success”. The typical Conservative Free Pass of Bush in full display.
This is what Conservatives call a “success’:
Al Qaeda did not exist to any significant degree in Iraq prior to Bush’s invasion. Now they are there and training recruits for worldwide war. Success!
Iran was restrained by a regional rival (Iraq) on its border prior to Bush’s invasion. Now Iran is the strongest power in the Middle East. Success!
The Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan (their home base), were on the run. However Bush diverted American assets to Iraq to invade a country that had almost nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. Now al Qaeda and the Taliban control vast areas of Afghanistan, supply the world with more than half its heroin and are close to toppling the government of American ally Pakistan. Success!
The previously Sunni government of Iraq, while brutal, was not an ally of Shia Iran or fundamentalist Sunni Islam. Now Iraq has an Islamic constitution and the central government meets regularly to coordinate and confer with the government of Iran. Success!
If that is “Success!”, what would it take for a Conservative to consider the occupation of Iraq to be a “failure”? The answer is, of course, what it would take is for someone other than George W. Bush to be president, since Conservatives are sworn to defend the actions and decisions of President Bush until his last day in office.
Had any other president, and particularly a Democratic President, presided over the results I described above, every single Conservative would be screaming at the top of his (or her) lungs about the terrible damage to the United States and the world that resulted from this (Democratic) President. But, considering we are talking about George W. “Free Pass” Bush, every sngle Conservatives has to stand up and publicly declare the occupation to be a “Success”. No matter what.
Re: “HOWEVER I WAS IN IRAQ and saw members of the State Dept brag about sabotaging our efforts.”
What are their names? You are, essentially, accusing Americans of treason. If you cannot (or will not) name names than I am publicly accusing you of lying. Just as your heros on FoxNews daily declare that “Liberals are saying”, without ever being accountable for the results of actually saying who said what.
If Americans sabatoged an occupation that has resulted in the deaths of Americans, then they are guilty of murder (as opposed to bungled decisions on the part of Bush Adminstration officials that resulted in the deaths of Americans, for which you and every single other Conservatives gives a free pass). Name some names and testify publicy so that they can be brought to trial for the deaths they have caused.
Just saying “I have had differences” is like saying that I like steak and he likes salmon from a restaurant menu. Those are differences. Unless you can say what those differences are, and what their cost has been, you are just throwing out a line to (further) get yourself off the hook for accountability for unquestioned support of (what I firmly believe to be) a bungled occupation of Iraq that had directly led to the deaths of thousands of people, include Americans. Conservatives have had no trouble whatsoever declaring what they believe to be the consequences of Jimmy Carter’s visits int he Middle East. But not one single Conservative will state an equivalent level of harm has been caused by Bush Administration incompetence. Only that mistakes “fell from the sky”, like rain. And no one can be held accountable, by name, for the consequences.
Oh Steve…please show me where anyone said the occupation of Iraq was a raging success.
Also, please don’t call Chris a liar. He can’t name names for obvious reasons, and your suggesting that he’s lying hardly demonstrates a “support the troops” mentality.
—
Doug,
Hey man, it happens to all of us. Like I said, Dems have called for these NIEs and both parties have ignored them so many times that it gets confusing in and of itself. Sad, but true. Richard Clarke (a man who I have little/no respect for) did say it best to the 911 Commission. (para) the only thing that seems to wake up the American people is more body bags.
Scott believes the Iraqi occupation is a success.
Re: “Also, please don’t call Chris a liar. He can’t name names for obvious reasons, and your suggesting that he’s lying hardly demonstrates a “support the troops” mentality.”
I knew that you would take umbrage at my using a loaded word (“liar”). However he made a public accusation of what amounted to treason against State Department employees. He publicly declared that they took actions that have directly cost the lives of Americans. That is, in my opinion, a punishable offence.
It is not obvious to me why such criminal behavior should be covered up.
I also know that every single Conservative here will repeat his charge across their circle of friends, acquaintenances and other blogs, promulgating the belief that, were it not for a few treasonous State Department employees, the Bush Administration’s brilliant handling of the Iraqi occupation would not be in the middle of the Civil war it is today. That kind of charge should be public and bring people to justice. Or exposed for the “cover Bush’s Butt” story I believe it to be.
I absolutely honor Chris’ service to his country, and his putting himself in danger to serve his countrymen, including myself with whom he violently disagrees.
However. Another American also served his country in combat. He also risked his life, was wounded and received decorations. He was called “liar” and “traitor” by many Conservatives, including the ChickenHawk Brigade at the Weekly Standard and other neoConservative outlets.
His name is John Kerry. And how many of you Conservatives here stood up and declared that those accusations against Senator Kerry “dishonored” or “failed to support” the sacrifice of American troops? My betting is exactly ZERO, since Mr. Kerry is a Democrat and therefore not deserving of the respect Conservatives only show to those on “their” side of the political fence.
When Conservatives decide that “support the troops” is not synonymous with “support the Republican Party”, then come back at me for my analysis.
And, once again, thanks Chris. It takes an exemplary group of individuals to put themselves in harms way on behalf of others, even when the “others” in no way deserve it. Thank you.
Yes Steve, I do believe the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been successful-not a raging success, certainly not “botched” or “incompetent.” Doug Feith said it best though, the greatest failure has been to let the msm and political opponents of the war reshape the casus belli to fit their own agendas rather than America’s.
As to the State Dept people Chris talked about in Iraq…my guess is he could have reported them or even better brought it to public attention and instead of action being taken the report would be politicized as you’ve done. Rather than criticize the State Dept handling of their end of the ops in Iraq…you went after the messenger.
Kerry? Kerry is a loser, and he lost-not because of swift boating as is the left’s excuse de jour, but because he took no stances; ie he had no principles. I still have friends who voted for hom who think he opposed the war in Iraq in more substantive ways than just rhetorical. btw, I supported Sen Kerry until he declared his candidacy and then completely reversed his rhetoric on the war 2 weeks later on Meet the Press. After that, he lost my support. I cannot support someone who doesn’t support success as we cannot have success unless efforts to attain it are supported. One cannot succeed and oppose the effort to succeed at the same time. Kerry did that. That’s why he lost. Swift boating? Care. I never looked into it. All I saw was that his commanding officer didn’t like him, hundreds of others who served with him didn’t, and only a handful did. That’s all I got from it. Oh, and yes, 5 years ago when he started running, the reason I supported him (till he began his Iraq dance positions) was almost entirely because of his military service (which contrasted starkly to Howard Dean’s).
But Iraq’s not Vietnam
John Kerry is no Barack Obama or John McCain
and Iraq is a success if by no other measure than the number of enemy killed there (tens of thousands).
And here I thought “success” was a “Shining Example of Democracy in the Middle East”.
I was going to ask how you defined “success”, but your last line answered it. “Dead Iraqis”. I assume you, like the rest of the Dus Administration defne “enemy” as anyone on the receiving end of an American bullet or bomb, regardless if they are five years old or ninety. It is interesting that, as you revel in the death of Iraqis, civilian andinsurgent, you also say that Iraq is “not Vietnam”, since, by the end of Lyndon Johnson’s term in office that was exactly how success was being defined there, “body counts”. In Vietnam, the US government automatically classified as “enemy” anyone who dies at the hands of American action: No proof needed other than the fact that they were dead.
For that matter, the US could invade Egypt. Think of all the “enemies” we would be able to kill then, as the entire population turned agaist us. In fact the Bush Administration and NeoConservatives appear poised to create a set of enemies three times larger than Iraq, in Iran. Think of all the enemies Conservatives could enjoy seeing killed then!
However the purpose is not to create more enemies so they can be killed. The purpose is to kill the enemies who already exist: For example th enemies who planned and set off theSeptember 11, 2001 attacks. Right now they doing well and growing in Afghansitan and Pakistan. But no matter, George w. Bush’s “glorious little war” is killing lots of Iraqis, of all persuasions, in Iraq, so Conservatives revel in the death and hope to “stay the course”, so more can be killed, even if they are replaced with double, or more, the number of replacements worldwide. If endless war is the Conservative objective, then Bush’s “plan” for Iraq is certainly a “success”.
Osama bin laden received the greates gift he could ever have prayed for from George W. Bush in the Iraqi occupation. But Conservatives are not permitted to admit that is happening, are they?
And, you supported Kerry until he announced his candidacy. That is logical since to have supported him after that would have meant voting aginst Republican George W. Bush: Something no Conservative was allowed to do in 2004. After all, we were “turning the corner in Iraq” then, weren’t we?
And, you confirmed my analysis of Chris’ comment. You automatically beleived, and reported his accusations of treasonous behavior on the part of State Department employees, with absolutely no documentation. I want those criminals brought to justice, or an admission that they did not exist. But Conservatives always beleive whatever will fit their political agenda, from Swiftboating to “The next six months will be crucial in Iraq”, to “Deficits don’t matter”.
“What are their names? You are, essentially, accusing Americans of treason. If you cannot (or will not) name names than I am publicly accusing you of lying. Just as your heros on FoxNews daily declare that “Liberals are saying”, without ever being accountable for the results of actually saying who said what.”
No Steve, I did not get his name and I DID report him. Nothing happened that I know of as myself, the USMC junior officer, and the USAF senior NCO were never called in to give statements. We were actually in shock as this TRAITOR mouthed off, laughed and left. That I did not immediatly stop my workout (we were at the gym at Phoenix Base, just outside the Iraqi Ministry of Defense) and take this fool by gun point to the CG myself still haunts me and always will. He walked out and left the base and I never saw him again. No one knew who he was when I asked around. How many Soldiers and Iraqi civilians were injured or killed because of his actions haunts me.
How is that for accountable to you pathetic moron?!?
I reported it to my commanding officer and he indicated it was not the first time. I complained to others and they shook their head as it seemed to happen a lot.
Now I am publicly assusing you of being a sanctamonious, brainwashed, “useful idiot” asshole not worth the oxygen you breath. I also accuse you of sounding JUST LIKE this waste of protoplasm I met in Iraq.
Good bye and good riddence you pathetic, insane piece of filth!!
Re: “How is that for accountable to you pathetic moron?!?”
You did not state that in your original post. As I have noted in the past, Conservative outlets such as FoxNews frequently make blanket declarations (“Liberals are saying”) without ever documenting their sources, thuse promulgating beliefs that cannot be justified or even proven to exist.
Since we all now know that you did take the actions I beleive are appropriate, I apologize for the accusation.
“Conservative outlets such as FoxNews frequently make blanket declarations (”Liberals are saying”) without ever documenting their sources,” — Phillie Steve
And, usually when checked out, there are sources and they corroberate what was said.
But, the Lefties (falsely called “Liberals”) on the other hand also don’t reference things, or they reference pig vomit that is itself a bald face lie (simple e.g., someone makes up a lie, some others quote it, then everyone references the quote), or they reference material they mis-interpret or just outright lie about.
And, no, I’m not going to waste my time documenting this for you because you wouldn’t learn anything from it if I did. We know it’s true, not because we credulously believe whatever some Keith Olberman-like freak tells us, but because we HAVE researched it and found it to be true. You should try it sometime, when you grow up and learn how.
___________________________________
A musical tribute to the Burka
My posts 25 and 26 overlapped above. Please delete post 25 as post 26 is more conclusive and the initial post (25) is superfluous.
Speaking of investigating…
P.S., says (in his post #23), “However. Another American also served his country in combat. He also risked his life, was wounded and received decorations. He was called “liar” and “traitor” by many Conservatives, including the ChickenHawk Brigade at the Weekly Standard and other neoConservative outlets.”
If you would have researched that (correctly) you would know that the accusations are true. For example, one of his “wounds” were serious, and none were received in combat, at least one even being self-inflicted (careless use of grenades). As to one purple heart application, his C.O. reviewed it and declined it, for reasons I just cited. The C.O. was transferred shortly thereafter and somehow, mysteriously, Kerry ends up with a purple heart for the same boo-boo his previous C.O. had refused.
About 250 of those he served with in Nam, including virtually his entire chain of command, said he was a fraud. But they are the ones who are called liars, even though they can back up every accusation.
There is so much material on this, none of it “proven” false as the MSM falsely alleges. This is like what I referred to before about when one of them lies and tells you “it was proven false” when it wasn’t, then others quoting the source of that lie and/or each other perpetrate it. But if you don’t know how (or worse, don’t even bother) to check, then you are duped into believing their lies and become yet another useful idiot who assists in covering the truth.
Another of Kerry’s lies, documented …by himself.
GET A CLUE!
That’s correct.
Not one single charge leveled against Kerry by his fellow soldiers was ever refuted.
Not one.
As the Conservative hate stream continues. Even decorated soldiers are not exempt, if they stray from Conservative dogma. What is more telling, while I am attacked for asking a claim made by a soldier for “proof” as not “supporting the troops”, calling soldiers who lead teams in combat “frauds” is perfectly all right with every single other soldier here, as long as the one attacked is “Liberal”.
That is the America that Conservatives seek to build: Freedom and Respect… but only for those who obey the Party Rules.
Re: “refuted”.
I know that Conservatives consider the US Constitution a “Worthless Piece of Paper”, but the last time I read the Constitution, a person was presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around (as Conservative heros Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter would have it). It is not up to John Kerry to prove he is not guilty of the Swiftboat smears. it is up to those making the charges to prove them beyond reasonable doubt: Including why some of those making the claims are essentially admitting to perjuring themselves in their testimony when the medals were awarded.
So, Stevie, is proof in a court of law the standard that you wish to apply to our discussions here now?
Is it really?
Answer carefully and remember that you will be held accountable to the same standards that you wish to set for others.
***
By the way, you aren’t being “attacked” for anything other than general rudeness and nastiness.
When you publicly call someone a liar what response do you really expect?
Mommy should have spent more time teaching you some manners.
PS. If you conducted yourself on my blog the way that you have conducted yourself here I would have shown you the door a long time ago.
Steve, I said you weren’t showing any signs of “supporting the troops” not because you disgreed or asked for proof, but because you described a soldier as treasonous-and incorrectly as it turned out.
btw, if you want to obey your leader’s desire to make America a red, white, and blue nation rather than continue the divisiveness you’re gonna have to stop calling people “conservatives,” and start calling them “Americans who disagree with me.”
No Steve, apology not accepted. Even more so as your idiotic and lie-filled “hate stream continues”. You will get nothing but your own stupidity thrown in your idiotic, projectionist, lie filled face.
Kerry is a seditionist piece of opportunistic filth in my opinion and I give a damn about is fluffed up military service. It is his actions AFTER his tour of duty that piss me and many other Soldiers off. The Paris “peace” talks, the “winter soldier” affair, ties with radical groups, and many others which were swepted under by the amnesty of the late 70s told me what I needed to know about him. Great that he was in the Navy, but he lied under oath to congress as a commissioned officer (the “Ghengis Kahn” testimony) and held “negotiations” with the enemy. And just like that fool I delt with in Iraq, Kerry is untouchable.
But don’t worry, my absentee ballot was also thrown out in 2004 so technically the last time I voted for President was 1996. I wonder if I will get a chance to vote against the left this election? If a conservative was running, I would then get a chance to vote for someone.
This is the kicker that makes my jaw drop. “I know that Conservatives consider the US Constitution a “Worthless Piece of Paper”… I take that as another personal insult and attack, adding to the long list of your stupidity and sanctimonious bouts of “holier than thou” colossal ignorance. You are truly the king of projectionism and spoon-fed regurgitation of leftist BS Steve.. A worthless piece of filth who is only good as an example of what projectionsim, paranoia, and brainwashing does to a person.
PHILLY STEVE, DEEPER AND DEEPER
“…the last time I read the Constitution, …
…waiting for snickering to die down…
. . . . .
…still waiting…
. . . . .
…ok, I’ll just ignore the background laughter and continue.
“…a person was presumed innocent until proven guilty.”
That’s in a court of law. But, if a person hasn’t been indicted, he can’t be tried. That doesn’t mean a sleezeball like Kerry should be let off the hook when the information is available for the public to judge his qualifications for the job he sought. No one was just going after him to hurt him (unlike what your buddies like to do), but to say “Don’t put this guy in power over you.” All his other perfidy, like dealing with Communists at the expense of America, while unrelated to his military service, is another factor we considered. To say we should ignore these facts is typical of the way amoral Leftists selectively apply their shifting scale of “values.”
Remember Kerry’s false testimony about phony American “war crimes” in Vietnam? Of course that just slipped your screw-loose little mind, didn’t it! And what about Leftists who falsely accuse honorable men, just for their own political gain? Did that also slip your iddy biddy brain? I guess you were just too engrossed in reading the Constitution to actually think about what it means.
And, about the many accusations you toss out without evidence…; how is it you get to be the arbiter of truth and justice when you are at leas as bad as you accuse us of being? Oh, right, like I just said above, your a Lefty and you think you have the right to ignore the rules you want everyone else to follow, and to make rules up as needed to get your way.
Bottom line, yours is a stupid, immature irrelevant and immoral argument.
EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG.
You know Yonason, now that you mention it I have never seen that in the Constitution either.
I wonder which one Stevie is reading.
¡Aye Carumba!
LOL
I hadn’t even thought to go in that direction. It’s been a while since I read it (a LONG while), so maybe I need to freshen up. It’s not that long a document, just deep.
Ah, here it is, under “THINGS THAT ARE NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION”
And the “A” in civics goes to, ….drumroll, …AYE CHEHUAHUA! Nice Work.
And little Stevie gets the dunce cap and has to sit in the corner, ….AGAIN!
Have I mentioned that everything they know is wrong?
(Nothing personal, Steve, but with the internet you have the world at your fingertips. Just USE IT! You can start with the above link to what ISN’T in the Constitution, it’s quite interesting. Why show your ignorance when with a few minutes research you could sound like an Einstein, …maybe even become one? (OK, that’s pushing it, but you could be a lot more informed, if you wanted to.) You sometimes write well, but it’s contents make reading it seem like cleaning up cat vomit, and sometimes even chicken$#^& …such a waste!)
Re: “By the way, you aren’t being “attacked” for anything other than general rudeness and nastiness. ”
Considering that not one of you can issue a “refutation” of one of my comments wihtout including a stream of hate and personal insults (a very common form of address on this site), I resent the implicatoins that I am rude.
When you can make a single statement without inserting a river of personal invective, then you can make such statements about others.
.
Re: “Steve, I said you weren’t showing any signs of “supporting the troops” not because you disgreed or asked for proof, but because you described a soldier as treasonous-and incorrectly as it turned out. ”
That is a flat out lie. I was referring to the behavior that Chris was describing in others. Any reading of my statement makes that obvious, and you know it.
.
Re: “This is the kicker that makes my jaw drop. “I know that Conservatives consider the US Constitution a “Worthless Piece of Paper”… I take that as another personal insult and attack, adding to the long list of your stupidity and sanctimonious bouts of “holier than thou” colossal ignorance. ”
Tell that to the man Conservatives consider one of the greatest presidents in US history.
http://www.news.com/5208-1028_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=16604&messageID=142932&start=-1
Re: “So, Stevie, is proof in a court of law the standard that you wish to apply to our discussions here now?
Is it really?
Answer carefully and remember that you will be held accountable to the same standards that you wish to set for others.”
My name is “Steve”. But making fun of my name, or talking down to me as though this were a thrid-grade school yard is typical of what passes for “debate” from Conservatives. When you can hold discourse on an adult level, without childish behavior, come back and we will discuss it further.
And I was referring to the “proof” of John Kerry’s guilt. the statement made was that no one on this site had “refuted” the accusatoin. Therefore, by this site’s logic it was considered “proven”. I was stating that the burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the accused.
By your very own standard of proof, someone on this site could accuse President Bush of conspiring with space aleins to control the Earth. Since such “X Files” accusations cannot be absolutely refuted (one can always cite a “government coverup”, by “Flopping Aces” standards it wold be considedred proven. I was actually trying to elevate the integrity of this site by demanding proof of accusations, such as the proof you always demand of me, but NEVER of a fellor Conservative.
.
Re: “…the last time I read the Constitution, …
…waiting for snickering to die down…”
So. Now Conservatives consider the US Constitution to be just another joke? Apparently so.
.
Re: “Nothing personal, Steve”
If it were “nothing personal”, you would not include personal mocking and insults in your response. You would just cite facts AND sources and let it go at that. For you Conservatives, debate is VERY personal, and VERY childish. Claiming that it is not, after the tones and choice of names in your previous statements is just lying. And I will not hesitate to call it that until you can make a single post without resorting to third-grade name calling. And it is my current opinion that Conservatives are intrinsically unable to do so.
.
Re: “PS. If you conducted yourself on my blog the way that you have conducted yourself here I would have shown you the door a long time ago.”
Don’t worry. My posts here have had a history of being held up “for review”, sometimes for days. So your Conservative-style “Freedom of Expression” exists here as well.
.
And the continued politicization of the US Military, in service of the Bush White House political agenda, should be of concern to anyone who actually believes in the US Constitution. However since it is now being used as a wing of the Republican National Committee, Conservatives just love it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/07/19/BL2007071901169.html
You’re right Steve. You didn’t demonstrate your support for America’s troops by describing Chris as treasonous. You demonstrated your support by calling him a liar.
Steve,
Your ignorance, hate, and projectionist bile is on display time and again.
Every insult you make at “conservatives” is easily thrown back at you ten times over. Yet your religious devotion to the left and/or your projectionist issues refuses to let you understand this. Please go post your lies and drivel at Kos or DU. They will love you until you question them. Then they will instantly ban you. But then, you are a leftist and your party already told you your vote does not count and you still devoutly follow them.
We put up with your infantilism, lies, hate, “conservatives this/that”, “24″ (now “X-File”) lunicy, and spoon-fed branwashed BS you religiously believe in for months.
You are a disgusting, infantile moron with a persecution complex and projection issues.
ChrisG
Interesting how the more we point out how wrong they are, the more they blather, equivalent to – “Oh yeah?! You want to see stupid, I’ll show you stupid!”
And they do.
Poor, poor, Stevie.
I predicted in my very first post following his return (post 12 on this thread) that whining, crying, complaining, and amateurish Moonbattery would soon ensue.
I have not been disappointed.
***
Stevie O’PinkPanties, you called ChrisG a liar without waiting to find out the facts.
He responded in a measured, completely appropriate way.
Then you have the nerve to whine about being picked on or “insulted”.
***
“My posts here have had a history of being held up “for review”, sometimes for days.”
Now, that’s laugh out loud funny.
If you were posting anything based in fact or reality it would stand the test of time, and not merely “for days”.
***
From now on though, we can certainly count on you to only post on matters which have been “proven” in a court of law since that is the standard that you wish to hold us to.
That should limit your inane vapidity to a very minor portion of what is posted here.
***
As the old saying goes, some people improve their surroundings by their presence, others by their departure.
Re: “Stevie O’PinkPanties, you called ChrisG a liar without waiting to find out the facts.”
I said he would be lying if he could not substantiate his accusations against un-named State Department Personnel. At the time he made hispost, Chris did not, and still does not, name any names. It was just “someone”.
When he declared that he did report such behavior to his superiors, I withdrew my criticism of his lack of actilon (which he never mentioned in his initialpost).
Those are the facts of that discussion.
And thank yo for confirming my observation that Conservatives lack the capacity to criticize others above the level of an eight-year-old.
By the way.
Your use of the term “O’PinkPanties”.
What are you trying to declare?
That I am homosexual, and therfore not entitled to have a legitimate opinion?
That I am really a woman, and therefore not as important as you are?
that I am a cross-dresser, and therefore a deviant to be removed from society?
How, exactly, are you trying to portray me to the rest of the posters here in that description, since yo obviously believe that appending that adejtive to me in some way disqualifies my opinions.
Not all opinions are legitimate, and none of Philly Steve’s opinions are legitimate. They are argumentative, false, fully clothed not in partisanship, but in animosity and ultimately are the full opposite of liberal/open-minded.
“Your use of the term “O’PinkPanties”.
What are you trying to declare?
That I am homosexual, and therfore not entitled to have a legitimate opinion?
That I am really a woman, and therefore not as important as you are?
that I am a cross-dresser, and therefore a deviant to be removed from society?”
Actually, none of the above.
But feel free to insert yourself wherever you feel you belong.
Re: “But feel free to insert yourself wherever you feel you belong.”
I was constructing a list of the stereotypes that are generally associated with the term you applied to me. If there is another category to which that appelation applies, please add it.
And I was not the one making the assertion. You were. You applied that term to me and therefore I was asking what you meant. Of course, you did not, and will never, explain what you meant to convey with “O’PinkPanties”, since you, along with most Conservatives, are wont to apply terms you consider insultig to others, but feign innocence when confronted with your childish, mean-spirited comments.
So, too did you show above. I may or may not be one of any of the three categories I described. I do not see anything evil in any of them (do you?). However by your “feel free” comment you, again, appeared to imply that I might want to assign myself to any one of them.
And so what if I did wear “PinkPanties”? Would that make any of my observations or conclusions about the (lack of) correctness of Conservative dogma less genuine?
You, like almost all Conservatives, feel very free to throw out personal insults to anyone and everyone with whom you disagree. But, when criticized even the slightest yourselves, rise up in anger and declare that we are failing to “support the troops” for the sole reason that we say you are wrong. Your hero Ann Coulter goes so far as to accuse people such as myself of “Treason” (a crime that carries the death penalty) when we declare our belief that Geroge W. Bush has been an incompetent president.
You bring new heights to the term “thin skinned”.
.
Re: “Not all opinions are legitimate,”
And, like all Conservatives, you have assigned yourself the sole role of declaring whose opinion is and is not “legitimate”. Based, usually, on compliance with the dictates of the Republican National Committee.
No Steve, your opinion remains illegitimate because it isn’t based on reality, fact, truth, or presented in the frame of an open mind. Lacking all of those elements, yes, your opinion is still an opinion, but without reality behind it, without fact supporting it, without truth embracing it, and without seeking an open-minded discourse it is just ranting-not substance, and I don’t refer to the substance of the RNC. Most of my positions on foreign policy are Clinton Admin positions, based on Clinton Admin claims, from Clinton Admin officials, and from the 2004 DNC Platform.
As to why I have “assigned” myself the role of declaring whose opinions is and is not legitimate, I guess that responsibility stems from three factors:
1) I’m far more liberal/open-minded than you have demonstrated yourself to be
2) I’m clearly far more informed than you are
3) Admin status
Re: “No Steve, your opinion remains illegitimate because it isn’t based on reality, fact, truth, or presented in the frame of an open mind.”
My opinion on the occupation of Iraq: That is has been incompetently managed by the Bush Administration and therefore cannot be called a “success” was based on the following:
This is what Conservatives call a “success’:
Al Qaeda did not exist to any significant degree in Iraq prior to Bush’s invasion. Now they are there and training recruits for worldwide war. Success!
Iran was restrained by a regional rival (Iraq) on its border prior to Bush’s invasion. Now Iran is the strongest power in the Middle East. Success!
The Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan (their home base), were on the run. However Bush diverted American assets to Iraq to invade a country that had almost nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. Now al Qaeda and the Taliban control vast areas of Afghanistan, supply the world with more than half its heroin and are close to toppling the government of American ally Pakistan. Success!
The previously Sunni government of Iraq, while brutal, was not an ally of Shia Iran or fundamentalist Sunni Islam. Now Iraq has an Islamic constitution and the central government meets regularly to coordinate and confer with the government of Iran. Success!
I asert that these are reality. Apparently you, like the well quoted phrase from a Bush White House aide, “Make your own reality”.
.
I am not speaking of “positions”. I am speaking of the consequences of incompetent execution of policies based on those positions. There is a difference, and neither you, nor any other Conservative appears willling to acknowledge the cost of that incompetent occupation to America: Both in terms of lives lost and treasure spent. You, like all other Conservatives appear to believe that the blunders of the Iraqi occupation were no worse than using the wrong fork at a formal dinner: Worth a “tut tut”, but certainly not something for which anyone (particularly anyone in the Bush Adminstration) should be held accountable. Conservatives used to speak of personal responsiblity. However, since the advent of President George W. Bush, one never hears the word “accountable” and “Bush Administration” in the same context.
Steve,
I assert that your delusions are NOT REALITY and many have been repeatedly refuted here.
AQ WAS IN IRAQ under Saddam. FACT Both from the intelligence reports after the invasion, talks I had with Iraqis myself, and pre-war intelligence.
AQ and the Taliban are still on the run in Afghanistan and do not “control vast areas of Afghanistan”. FACT
Pakistan may fall, but only if it appeases the Taliban it spawned years ago and a leftist US administration abandons them (or bombs them as one candidate stated). However, Pakistan is, for the first time in its history, fighting the mountain tribes where AQ is hiding and taking on the Madrasses which spwned them. FACT
The terrorsts take their talking points and gain motivation from the lies and idiocy of the left. Lies you repeat like a parrot. FACT
Iraq dares to go to its neighbors and conduct diplomacy to make them stop not-so-covert military action within Iraq. FACT
Somehow this upsets you. Would you rather have Iraq invade Iran? Do you think Iran just suddenly became a growing regional power? Is your historical memory so short and biased?
Unlike Bosnia, where the occupying governments nullified elections, the US has allowed Iraq to form a constitutional government reflective of its culture. As such, it will have an Islamic element. Multiple elections have been held and more are on the way. Iraq is feeling its way through being liberated and given the chance for freedom for the first time ever. FACT
I, and many other US Service Members, support our efforts which you lie and project your insane hate and bile upon WITH OUR LIVES. How is that for “personal responsiblity”? You sit back, spread your spoon-fed lies and brainwashed leftist hate and risk nothing. The mythical “Bush Police State” not only has done nothing to you, but allows you and your ilk to protest and even attack Military Recruiting stations with little to no reprocussions. If I so much as snear at you or some other leftist moron protesting me while in uniform, I will be punished. Most likely I would be punished out of uniform also. The “peace” protestors would be hailed as heros by the media and the left for taking on an unarmed Soldier. You ignore what muliple MILBLOGs, writers, and Service Members say in support of our efforts to defend your sorry ass while stabbing us in the back due to your insane hyper-partisan hatred. FACT!
I asert that these are reality, Steve. Apparently you, like the well quoted phrase from a Bush White House aide, “Make your own reality”.
You, Steve, “Make your own reality” and project it all upon “conservatives”. FACT
Now go back and watch some more “24″ or “X-Files” so you can come up with further insanity to project upon us.
Yep. Sorry Steve, but Chris is 100% correct. Work remains to be done in Iraq, but so far it is a historic success with no equal or greater comparison to a counter-insurgency war.
Ultimately, it seems that there are many Americans-perhaps Steve-who claim to want success in Iraq, but do advocate actions and toss out rhetoric that is completely contrary to accomplishing success. Why? Because of political partisanship.
Re: “AQ WAS IN IRAQ under Saddam. FACT”
With virtually no support from the government. However that has nothing to do with theincompetent occupation AFTER the invasion, about which Conservatives insist that the Bush Administratin receive a FREE PASS.
.
AQ and the Taliban are still on the run in Afghanistan and do not “control vast areas of Afghanistan”. FACT
Not based on this, among many otehr, reports
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm847.cfm
The Taliban has made a limited but violent resurgence in eastern Afghanistan and recently launched a series of attacks to disrupt the elections. More than 1,200 Afghans, including roughly 600 insurgents, have been killed this year, making it the worst year of violence since the Taliban was overthrown in 2001. Operating from bases in the Pushtun tribal belt in neighboring Pakistan, the Taliban has deployed small groups of insurgents across the border to attack government forces, assassinate local officials, and intimidate voters. At least four election workers and six candidates running for election have been killed. On September 13, insurgents murdered seven Afghans merely because they carried voter registration cards.
.
Pakistan may fall, but only if it appeases the Taliban it spawned years ago. However, Pakistan is, for the first time in its history, fighting the mountain tribes where AQ is hiding. FACT
Didn’t the Pakistani government sign a peace accord with AQand Taliban warlords in some of theirprovinces aseveral months ago?
.
The terrorsts take their talking points and gain motivation from the lies and idiocy of the left. FACT
That is an opinion, not a fact. There is a difference, although Conservatives insist on blurring the terms in order to five a patena of legitimacy to their assertsion. Usually they do it by appending words in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, as though that means one is supposed to accept the declaratio, without questionss.
.
Iraq dares to go to its neighbors and conduct diplomacy to make them stop not-so-covert military action within Iraq. FACT
The iraqi government is just now launching an investigation to determine if such interference is even happening, if I recall the news items from the past few weeks. In any event, how is that progressing, if you declare that it is happening?
.
Unlike Bosnia, where the occupying forces nullified elections, the US has allowed Iraq to form a constitutional government reflective of its culture. As such, it will have an Islamic element. Multiple elections have been held and more are on the way. FACT
The Iraqi Constitution does not have “Islamic” elements. It recognizes the Quoran as their supreme governing document, complete with stonings and now honor killings.
.
I support our efforts which you lie and project your insane hate and bile upon WITH MY LIFE. FACT!
Can you document one single post I have ever made, here or anywhere else, where I have said, or even implied hatred of anyone (other than Chris Matthews, the missognist commentator of “Hardball”, of course)? I have declared that Conservatives insist upon treatig the blatant bungling of hte Iraqi Occupation as though it were a few mnor mistakes, with no real consequences and certainly nothing for which any member of the Bush Administration shold be held accountable. and I still stand by that declaration. It does not mean I hate anyone, and it certaily does not qualify as “bile”, especially when compared to the personal invective I see here daily from Conservatives.
Thank your for your service to our country, though.
,
How is that for “personal responsiblity” you pathetic, brainwashed projectionist?
“I asert that these are reality. Apparently you, like the well quoted phrase from a Bush White House aide, “Make your own reality”.”
You, Steve, “Make your own reality” and project it all upon “conservatives”. FACT
Now go back and watch some more “24″ or “X-Files” so you can come up with further insanity to project upon us.
Does anyone else here detect even the slightest amount of “hate” or “bile” in the above comments? Of course, since Chris is a Conservative, the standards that are applied to me will never be asked of him, or any other Conservative, ever. Standards of conduct, personal responsiblity and accountablility are, in my OPINION, something that Conservatives apply to others, but rarely, if ever, to themselves.
Re: “timately, it seems that there are many Americans-perhaps Steve-who claim to want success in Iraq,”
I thought we had that when President Bush gave his “Missin Accomplished” speech (although I do freely admit that htewhite Hose has redefined what that meant, multiple times since then, along with the true origin of the banner on the Abraham Lincoln.
Can you define for me, exactly, what “suffess” will look like in Iraq. And, exactly how much you are willing to spend of America’s treasure to get it?
My prediction is that you answer to my first question will be pure sarcasm and the answer to the second will be the standard “whatever it takes”, to which I will reply, are you willing to sacrifice $200 billin a year, and that many lives for 100 years? If not, then you are less than “whatever it takes”, and not willing to set a limit.
Steve,
Just to let you know, the spam guard caught you post as it has many others but I de-spammed it. As I said to others, the spam guard is letting some creative spam through, but blocking posts.
Remember that when you whine that you are persecuted again.
And remember, you are not forced to come here and can go to Kos or DU.
We have documented your hate and bile and have thrown your own words back at you time and time again.
“Standards of conduct, personal responsiblity and accountablility are, in my OPINION, something that Conservatives apply to others, but rarely, if ever, to themselves.”
Then leave. You attacked me and others here repeatedly. You crossed a line above that you will never cross back for me. I will continue to throw your projectionist insanity back at you ten fold.
Give up the tired old “conservative this/that” garbage Steve. You are so blinded by your own issues that you fail to assess yourself.
Yes I am angry and yes you and your ilk disgust me.
‘Scuse me for asking Stevie, but which of your assertions, accusations, arguments, generalizations, and projections have been “proven” beyond a “reasonable doubt”?
Kindly cite the court cases and the court districts in which the cases were decided.
Outside of that, you’re just gassing off again.
By the way, I can cite a court case which links Iraq to 9/11 so your assertion of “almost nothing” doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
Of course, you are accustomed to that by now.
President Bush said the mission in Iraq was accomplished? Please show me the quote. I know there was the time he gave a speech saying-incorrectly and lacking a proper assessment of the enemy’s vote-that major combat operations had ended, and I know the ship had a big banner on it saying that it’s [USS Lincoln's] mission [longest carrier deployment in world history] was accomplished, but he actually said that? I don’t think so. I think that’s another leftist spin/lie/propaganda aimed at degrading support for success in the war in Iraq.
Whether it’s President Bush, Sen McCain, Sen Obama, or Sen Clinton, or even Sen Kerry in 2004…all of them basically define success in Iraq as having that place secure and stable enough to where it doesn’t need US combat support, doesn’t need US financial support (any more than any other nation I assume), can fight Al Queda, and doesn’t create a regional war. Me, I think success looks like an Iraq that’s stable enough to where the US doesn’t have to invade a 3rd time.
What’s it worth? Perhaps the greatest question you’ve ever dared to ask, Steve. Simply put, success in Iraq is worth in blood and treasure any amount that is less than the likely prospects of an Iraq that is collapsed, is a terrorist haven akin to Lebannon in the 80′s, Afghanistan or the Balkans in the 90′s, and as lawless as Pakistan’s non-governed tribal areas. $200bn a year? Well, opponents of the war have ranted off estimates ranging to $2trillion, but the DNC’s attack ad on Sen McCain points out that it’s been about $500bn in 5yrs. $100bn a year is about 1/12th the US GDP. Billions of bucks are a lotta money, and while some might argue that such money should be better spent on US bridges, healthcare, social security, or an economic stimulus check to say….ME, I submit that $100bn isn’t a lotta money by percentage, and is affordable by comparison. I think the US could afford $2 trillion a year, but that’d be too much. A regional war (the consequence of premature evacuation) would easily cost 10x as much as current operations, so someplace between the $100-1000bn a year is affordable imo. Lives? Well, me, I think all men are created equal and that an Iraqi’s life is as valuable as an American one. Opponents of the war seem to think differently. They complain about 4000 Americans killed by terrorists in Iraq, and complain that (again, body count numbers range in propagada exaggeration up to 3million) the Iraqis killed are America’s fault. They’re not. Most were killed by suicide bombers, and most suicide bombers were Al Queda. Thus, they were killed by Al Queda, and Al Queda is responsible.
How long? 100yrs? I don’t think anyone’s said it’d be a good idea to have people dying and killing in Iraq for 100yrs. That sounds like yet another anti-war exaggeration/propaganda/spin aimed at undermining the war and causing defeat rather than an effort towards success.
Exaggerated body counts
Exaggerated financial costs
Exaggerated timelines
Exaggerated quotes (Mission Accomplished, We should fight in Iraq for 100yrs, etc)
Incessant reporting of US atrocities while complete media blackout on AQ atrocities
Denying/dismissing the effect and presence of AQ in Iraq
Denying/dismissing the WMD threat despite the ISG findings and a dozen bi-partisan independent investigations
..all of these and more combine to support the enemy’s objective (forcing the US to leave so they can turn Iraq into chaos (as described earlier). This-BTW-is exactly why Sen Obama and Sen Clinton and Sen McCain see American troops in Iraq until 2013. All three have used that specific date now.
EVERYTHING THEY KNOW IS WRONG
Al Qaeda did not exist to any significant degree in Iraq prior to Bush’s invasion.
(YES, THEY HAD TRAINING CAMPS THERE AND CONNECTIONS)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3033&R=C56218AEE
Iran was restrained by a regional rival (Iraq) on its border prior to Bush’s invasion.
(WHICH IS WHY IRAN WAS CAUSING SO MUCH TROUBLE SINCE THE 80′S?)
http://www.jewishtoronto.net/page.html?ArticleID=134689
The Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan (their home base), were on the run.
(STILL ARE!)
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/01/taliban_resurgence_sign_of_des.html
almost nothing to do with the September 11 attacks.
(“ALMOST” NOTHING ISN’T “NOTHING”)
http://patdollard.com/2008/03/1999-abc-news-video-shows-bin-ladens-connections-to-saddam-hussein/
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/clintlion.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq-0u9Cbkds
Now al Qaeda and the Taliban control vast areas of Afghanistan,
(RAIDING INTO IS NOT OCCUPYING & PROGRESS IS BEING MADE)
http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/1361872/in_afghanistan_marines_begin_assault_on_taliban/
supply the world with more than half its heroin
(WITH OR WITHOUT THEM, THAT’S WHAT AFGHANIS GROW)
http://www.metimes.com/International/2008/05/14/delivering_the_fatal_blow_to_afghan_opium/7986/
(AND WITHOUT THEM, THEY USED TO GROW MORE)
http://opioids.com/afghanistan/index.html
and are close to toppling the government of American ally Pakistan.
(THANKS TO DEMOCRAT INTRFERENCE!)
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/02/in-pakistan-kerry-biden-hagel-hang-with.html
Re: “(WHICH IS WHY IRAN WAS CAUSING SO MUCH TROUBLE SINCE THE 80′S?)”
Now this brings up an intresting question. If Conservatives knew that Iran was our enemy in the 1980′s, why did president Ronald Reagan authorize the sale of US weapons to that very same regime.
Conservative heros, such as Ann Coulter, are so quick to toss the “Treason” charge around against Liberals such as myself, merely for saying we believe that George W. Bush is an incompetent president.
What then must Conservatives think of hte president who actually authorized the sale of weapons to these very same enemies?
Steve, I think Ronald Reagan was wrong to sell weapons to the Iranians as part of the secret talks the US had with them. It wasn’t treason since those weapons weren’t used against us though.
P.S. – As I said in a different thread, honest conservatives sometimes make mistakes, but unlike them the Lefties almost ALWAYS do!
Actually Steve, in the end, it may have been a good move. Shocking as that may seem. But then, not as shocking as your continued “conservative this/that” idiocy and continued religious like hatred of and projection onto “Conservatives” and our not-so conservative President. I do not agree with the carrot-stick approach, but maybe someone in DC realized that Iraq needed to not win its war and become a regional superpower.
Iran wasted money keeping up outdated US systems (F-14As, HAWK SAMS, and other high maintenance systems) all of which were cut off from spare parts soon after. Notice that these systems were not used against the US. Only Iran’s Russian supplied systems and Austrian 50 CAL rifles are. The latter becoming an embarrisment for Austria. Iran is now starving its people in a quest to buy everything Russia and China will sell it.
But that does not seem to bother you.
No US parts and Iran’s expensive air force is now outmoded junk. Even if they could operate, Iran would face the dilema any nation would when using high end US weapons against us. Even IF we allow them to work (computers can be easily programmed with kill codes), we know the jamming/destruct codes of the SAMs and the performance aspects of the planes. Iran realized this also and moved to buy former Soviet systems…. Only to find out our warplanes and tanks can easily destroy them.
The failure of Iraq’s high end SAM radar nets to computer interdiction in 1991 probably made Iran realize using US weapons was a bad idea.
As for the “treason” BS, even congress, after multiple hearings, does not agree with you. That said, congress should have investigated some of its members who went to Central American dictatorships and made all sorts of deals.
BTW, I do not even read Coulter’s collumns. But reality and your views are universes apart and I know nothing I say will change them. I just have to make sure that those who believe such as you never have to pay for their stupidity.
Re: “Steve, I think Ronald Reagan was wrong to sell weapons to the Iranians as part of the secret talks the US had with them. It wasn’t treason since those weapons weren’t used against us though.”
How do you know that those weapons, or their components are not being used in the IED’s that are killing Americans now? If a Democratic President had made those sales, ther is not a Conservative in America who would be splitting hairs about it the way you are right now.
Steve,
Thanks for proving that you know nothing about these systems from the 1880s (using 1960s and 70s tech).
These are not IEDs, but manufactured EFPs. They use a Russian explosives and modern fuses. No HAWK or F-5, or F-14 electronics could be used in these. They are new manufacture and copper cones are not found in these systems. Cell phones were also not used in these systems. The US does not make RPGs or other components of these systems. Russia and China, however, do.
And again, you are wrong about conservatives, but no surprises there. If a Democrat made these sales, we would still have issues, but would also be rational enough to know the difference between aircraft systems and modern EFP designs. It is not like Regan let Loral give Iran guidance computers for ICBMs or anything.
Why Russian agencies are assisting Islamic terrorists who want to (and have) kill(ed) Russians is something you will have to ask on Pravda.
“That said, congress should have investigated some of its members who went to Central American dictatorships and made all sorts of deals.”
This morning I saw an article about Congressman James McGovern and his activities related to Colombia and FARC.
It will be interesting to see how far this one goes.
Re: ““That said, congress should have investigated some of its members who went to Central American dictatorships and made all sorts of deals.”
Congressional representatives cannot “make deals” with foreign governments. Anyone who publicly makes a claim that they can is lying.
.
Re: “These are not IEDs, but manufactured EFPs. They use a Russian explosives and modern fuses. No HAWK or F-5, or F-14 electronics could be used in these. They are new manufacture and copper cones are not found in these systems. Cell phones were also not used in these systems. The US does not make RPGs or other components of these systems. Russia and China, however, do.”
Thank you for the clarification. Then I take it you find only a tiny problem with President Reagan selling weapons, of any kind, to a coutnry that you maintain was an enemy of the Untied States? Or does he receive the usual, ultra-mild criticism that is the extent to which Conservatives are permitted to criticize Republicans? You have, I believe, confirmed my assertion that Conservatives will always restain their criticism when a Republican is involved: Whether it is the bungled occupation of Iraq (which even Saint John McCain says was badly managed), costing thousands of lives unnecessarilly, or selling weapons to a country you maintain is at war with the United States (“as long as they were not used against the US”, is apparently enought of an alibi for you).
Again, had a Democratic President presided over either of the above, neither you, not any Conservative, anywhere in the US would be so mild in your comments. You would be screaming for their heads. Instead, since we are talking about Saints Reagan and Bush, you will make excuses and minimizae the damage from their actions to the bitter end. Because that is what Conservatives are required to do: Serve the Republican party, no matter what.
.
As an observation, in order to protect George W. Bush, this is what Conservatives are required to declare a “success”:
Al Qaeda did not exist to any significant degree in Iraq prior to Bush’s invasion. Now they are there and training recruits for worldwide war. Success!
Iran was restrained by a regional rival (Iraq) on its border prior to Bush’s invasion. Now Iran is the strongest power in the Middle East. Success!
The Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan (their home base), were on the run. However Bush diverted American assets to Iraq to invade a country that had almost nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. Now al Qaeda and the Taliban control vast areas of Afghanistan, supply the world with more than half its heroin and are close to toppling the government of American ally Pakistan. Success!
The previously Sunni government of Iraq, while brutal, was not an ally of Shia Iran or fundamentalist Sunni Islam. Now Iraq has an Islamic constitution and the central government meets regularly to coordinate and confer with the government of Iran. Success!
And there is not one single Conservative, here or anywhere else, who is permitted to acknowledge the degree to which George W. Bush’s cabinet (whether you choose to blame Donald Rumsfeld or use Colin Powell as your excuse) botched an occupation that Donald Rumsfeld himself spoke of as lasting only about six months (remember? Or are you not allowed to remember that one?
.
And, by the way, I am still waiting to learn what Aye Chihuahua was trying to say when he used the appelation “O’PinkPanties” as part of his string of personal insults. There are multiple different groups of American society to which he could have been referring, but I am still curious as to which one of those groups he considered so inferior that he wanted to tie me into them:
Women?
Homosexuals?
Cross Dressers?
(I personally do not consider any of them inferior. However that will nto stop at least one of the Conservatives here from declaring that I do).
From my observation here, Conservatives have a great deal of difficulty in agruing a point without injecting personal invective and hate (which probably explains why all Conservatives adore Ann Coulter). but I still wonder which of those groups, or another, is the one to which Aye desires to assign me.
Stevie O’PinkPanties,
Which one the assertions, accusations, presumptions, generalizations, projections, allegations, and outright lies that you posted above has been “proven” beyond a “reasonable doubt” in a court of law?
That is the standard that you chose to set here and you will be held to it.
Cite the case and court jurisdiction.
Steve, your cut/paste cries of defeat in Iraq have been posted by you repeatedly, and debunked repeatedly with facts.
“This is what Conservatives call a “success’:
Al Qaeda did not exist to any significant degree in Iraq prior to Bush’s invasion. Now they are there and training recruits for worldwide war. Success!
-Your information is flawed, the lastest findings show that Al Queda groups including Al Queda leadership were in Iraq before the war, and operating on Saddam’s behalf en masse
Iran was restrained by a regional rival (Iraq) on its border prior to Bush’s invasion. Now Iran is the strongest power in the Middle East. Success!
Iran is hardly the strongest power in the Mideast w 5 US carrier battlgroups in the area dozens of US squadrons, and hundreds of thousands of US forces surrounding Iran. No, they are not the most powerful force in the regionl. They are, however, the most influential with people who can’t open their partisan eyes.
“The Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan (their home base), were on the run. However Bush diverted American assets to Iraq to invade a country that had almost nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. ”
Check a calender. US invaded Afghanistan in Oct 01, UBL escaped Nov/Dec 01, and US buildup for Iraq started in September 02. The only unit diverted in that time was the 5th SOG.
“Now al Qaeda and the Taliban control vast areas of Afghanistan, supply the world with more than half its heroin and are close to toppling the government of American ally Pakistan. Success!”
debunked earlier w mutliple links and ignored by someone who cares to rant rather than read.
“The previously Sunni government of Iraq, while brutal, was not an ally of Shia Iran or fundamentalist Sunni Islam. Now Iraq has an Islamic constitution and the central government meets regularly to coordinate and confer with the government of Iran. Success!”
-I submit that the current govt gets more support in blood and treasure from the US, and that’s why the surge has worked both militarily and politically.
Yawn, another cut/paste rant from Steve.
Steve,
As usual you do not get it nor even wish to. You live in your fantasy “24/X-Files” world where “evil conservatives” are out to get you. Everything you cited above in your copy/paste “success” and “conservative this/that” rant was refuted time and again (even in this thread). You are a preprogrammed robot and you spout what your “thought leaders’ desire you to as you copy-paste away.
I have less problems with Reagan’s sale of arms/parts to Iran with proceeds funding anti-communist forces than I do with Clinton’s authorizations of advanced technology sales to China in return for campaign contributions. The sale of outmoded arms which we knew how to defeat and were never used against us is FAR less dangerous than China moving from no space launches to having ICBMs and anti-sat weapons along with a very prodigious cyber-warfare capability. However, neither President’s actions were an act of treason, sedition, or a violation of federal code (foreign relations act) as both were the Executive at the time.
Congressmen DID go to these communist governments and DID make personal deals (not national treaties as you seem to mis-state) to work against the foreign policy of the United States.
Again you call me a liar and again I shove your arrogant stupidity back at you. Again you piss me off with your moronic antics yet will get all whiny and cry persecution when called out.
Re: “-Your information is flawed, the lastest findings show that Al Queda groups including Al Queda leadership were in Iraq before the war, and operating on Saddam’s behalf en masse”
I realize that Conservatives are required to treat any pronouncement from Fred Barnes as the Word of God. But your “supporting”posts were from the Weekly Standard, a blatantly political magazine that has been trying to forment wars for more than a decade and is onw trying to repeat president Bush’s “successes” in Iran.
The fact is, based on any non-neoConservative evidence that the occupation of Iraq has been botched. And you know it. Were it not for your Conservative vow of loyalty to the Republican party, you would be screaming this as well.
And Saddam Hussein and bn laden were enemies, bin Laden having issued a fatwah against Saddam and, even as Bush’s invasion was imminent, only issuing “support” for the Iraqi people, not Saddam. Trying to connect Saddam and the September 11, 2001 attacks has been a Bush Administration ploy ever since that day, and Conservatives, out of total loyalty to George W. Bush, are required to beleive it, unconditinally.
.
Re: “-I submit that the current govt gets more support in blood and treasure from the US, and that’s why the surge has worked both militarily and politically.”
You can “submit” whatever you want. But Conservatives do not truth make, even for those who “Create their own reality”.
And your answer skirts the truth that the Iraqi constitution now declares Koranic law as supreme in iraq, and the Iraqi government, particularly in the Shia areas, is closely allied with Iran’s government.
.
And, the fact is that Osama bin Laden, the perpetrator of the September 11 attacks is still free, more than six years after the attack. And not one single Conservative is permitted to say that Bush has failed to capture him because of total loyaltoy to “The Decider”.
.
re: “As usual you do not get it nor even wish to. You live in your fantasy “24/X-Files” world where “evil conservatives” are out to get you.”
Can you document ever one time where I said that anyone was out to “get” me?
.
Re: “However, neither President’s actions were an act of treason, sedition, or a violation of federal code (foreign relations act) as both were the Executive at the time.”
This is very interesting. Are you saying that you believe that the President of hte US (any president) is incapable of breaking a federal law by nature of being the Chief Executive?
.
Re: “Congressmen DID go to these communist governments and DID make personal deals (not national treaties as you seem to mis-state) to work against the foreign policy of the United States. ”
Can you provide copies of these “agreements”?
Steve, I didn’t know Fred Barnes said anything about AQ/Iraq. Please link. In the meantime, I refer to the captured documents and the last Iraqi Perspectives Project review of those docs etc. They show that Saddam’s regime was closely tied to many Al Queda groups including EIJ which made up 2/3 of AQ leadership. The docs also show very clearly that Saddam’s IIS (with or without his knowledge) worked closely with many AQ groups inside Iraq that later became described by the msm as Al Queda in Iraq. Following that msm stereotyping, they formed a coalition called Al Queda in the land of the two rivers as well as other coalitions. However, it remains that AQ was in Iraq en masse before the war, and was working with Saddam’s regime. you can rant and whine all you want about dated, misinterpreted and half quoted half truths from the past, but that’s the findings of the latest investigation.
Btw, Saddam and UBL didn’t have to be lovers to be allies. The French and US aren’t lovers, but are allies. The US and USSR were certainly not lovers, but were allies in WWII. Racist Hitler was certainly no lover of the Asian Japanese, and he often mocked Mussolini as well as demonstrated contempt for the man. Allies don’t have to be lovers-just have to share the same enemy, and the 911 Commission says that was the case w Saddam’s regime and AQ
Stevie,
The Saddam/Iraq link to Al Qaeda/9-11 has been proven in court.
Which of your generalizations, accusations, projections, false statements, and wild folly have been proven in a court of law?
Cite the cases and jurisdictions please.
Re: “The Saddam/Iraq link to Al Qaeda/9-11 has been proven in court.”
Can you provide the link to the courd records that Saddam was responsible for the September 11 2001 attacks?
.
I’m still waiting to find out what sort of personal insult you were implying from “O’PinkPanties”. Of course I could be mistaken and you were trying to compliment me, in which case I assume my response should be, “thank you”.
.
Steve, I didn’t know Fred Barnes said anything about AQ/Iraq. Please link.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3378
Steve, thanks for the link. Sadly, it’s FIVE years old. The Iraqi Perspectives Project investigation is a few months old, and it’s based on captured documents that have been authenticated as well as other post-war intel. Opponents of the war don’t like to see this, so your favorite sites most likely ignore this truth since it doesn’t support their agenda/your agenda
“Can you provide the link to the courd records that Saddam was responsible for the September 11 2001 attacks?”
Absolutely.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/pdf/iraqop.pdf
***
Here, in part, is what Judge Baer had to say about the Iraq-9/11 connection:
***
Steve, I didn’t know Fred Barnes said anything about AQ/Iraq. Please link.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3378
That article was written by Stephen Hayes. How do you connect it to something Fred Barnes supposedly said?
By the way, Hayes’ book “The Connection” will clear up a lot of things for you if you haven’t read it.
Dang it.
My response will be forthcoming as soon as it is released from the clutches of the evil SPAM filter.
Re: “Steve, thanks for the link. Sadly, it’s FIVE years old. The Iraqi Perspectives Project investigation is a few months old, and it’s based on captured documents that have been authenticated as well as other post-war intel. Opponents of the war don’t like to see this, so your favorite sites most likely ignore this truth since it doesn’t support their agenda/your agenda”
Of course.
I’m sure all your favorite sources, The Weekly Standard, NewsMax, The Washington Times, Matt Drudge, are all over it.
Since the documents are so compelling, why doesn’t President Bush just go on Prime Time TV, as the president and declare, “we have the proof”? He and his staff certainly spent enough time trying to link, at least indirectly,Saddam and the attacks. Now that the “proof” is so conclusive, why not just show the world his vindication? Why leave it to just the Conservative media to promote this idea, only to the Party Faithful?
.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/pdf/iraqop.pdf
The “meeting” in the Chech Republic has been debunked for years. Citing Matt Drudge is about as reliable as citing Rush Limbaugh.
.
Re: “That article was written by Stephen Hayes. How do you connect it to something Fred Barnes supposedly said?”
As executinve Editor, Mr. Barnes takes credit for his publication.
.
Still waiting from Aye on exactly how he was intending to insult me with “O’PinkPanties”.
Who exactly cited Matt Drudge?
Show me.
You asked me for the court documents.
That’s what I gave you.
Why is it that whenever I see a comment from Philly Steve, this image comes to mind:
And of course the answer is:
Steve,
I don’t cite those sources. ["I’m sure all your favorite sources, The Weekly Standard, NewsMax, The Washington Times, Matt Drudge, are all over it."]. I cite the reports themselves.
If you have an example of me citing Matt Drudge, I’ll eat my hat.
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/index.html
This report specifically lists numerous examples of Saddam’s regime working with Egyptian Islamic Jihad (a link that was also reported by the FBI during the Clinton and Bush Admins). This is significant because the leaders of EIJ were also 2/3 of the leadership of AQ (Zawahiri for example, but he’s only 1 of hundreds). The report also documents dozens of examples of Saddam’s regime working with radical Islamics like Al Queda, and much more.
Your information is hugely dated, based on very little very old intel, and you’re afraid to open your mind (remember, liberal means “open-minded”) to the possiblity that you’re wrong.
Why doesn’t Bush go on TV? Getting the truth out there is the greatest shortcoming and example of ineptitude of his administration, but it doesn’t help that media outlets (like NBC this week) prefer to make up their own truth and misrepresent what he actually says. That’s why so many arguments against the Iraq War are paper tigers.
5 million killed-reality is about 100,000 in 5yrs (a slower rate than the Kosovo war)
3 trillion in costs-reality (even DNC admits this now) is under $500bn over 5yrs-less than the cost of containment was in the Clinton years)
no wmd-reality in the 1000+pg of the ISG report is that there was a WMD threat just not in the form of stockpiles
inspections woulda worked-reality, even Blix, Ritter, and others acknowledge that they couldn’t work without Iraq’s help, and we know Iraq couldn’t/didn’t want to help because it would remove their deterrent against others
no ties to AQ-reality from captured docs and hundreds of regime leaders caught working with AQ is that yeah, Saddam was a huge state sponsor of terror, far worse than was previously known, and that the war in Iraq is part of war on terror
AQ is only small part of insurgency-reality, small in numbers, but most of the killing come not from the large numbers of part time insurgents but from AQ suicide bombers; ie AQ does most of the work in the insurgency
I could go on and on, but in the end…the real distortion of intel, facts, etc isn’t some BUSHLIED bit, but rather Demslied and MSM hyped (gosh, American media would never do such a thing, right).
That would be Bill Clinton appointed Judge Baer, no?
Now that’s some funky odd-ball freakish logic right there.
Surely you jest.
Again, I’ll ask you, what did Mr. Barnes himself say?
You claimed that he said something, now what was it?
What were his words?
Yes, that’s him.
Re: “Who exactly cited Matt Drudge?”
I mis-attributed TheSmokingGun to the Drudgereport. TSG is another generally right-wing site, but it was my mistake to mix the two up. sorry about that.
Has the court case stood up on appeal?
Re: “Why is it that whenever I see a comment from Philly Steve, this image comes to mind”
I always preferred Margaret Hamilton to Billie Burke myself.
Yes, the court case has withstood appeal.
Second District if my memory serves me.
I’m at work at the moment so limited time for posting, research, and linking now.
” always preferred Margaret Hamilton to Billie Burke myself.”
Why am I not surprised?
Re: “Why am I not surprised?”
She was such a wonder shade of green.
Besides, why should we be so deadly serious or visciously attacking each other all the time. A litle self-depricating humor can lighten up any discussion.
Philly Steve has a sense of humor?
Must be high
Let’s test it. I heard this great joke this morning. Hillary and Obama run for President…
Who’s the little troll wannabe with the brush stroke a mile wide that always want to paint conservatives as the evil people who are always licking at the boots of Bush no matter what? Oh yeah, that’s you steve. Although you should be good at jokes, your entire existence here is one big one.
“I always preferred Margaret Hamilton to Billie Burke myself.” — Philly Steve
O.k., but you CAN have both, you know…
IGGEDY BIGGADY ZAGADY ZOOOOP!
It’s yours!
ooops! Now where did THAT come from?! Guess I don’t know my own strength.
Maybe I should have had the SPELL check installed on my wand, after all!
____________________________________________________________________
(don’t click on that first sentence in my post #89, it was just supposed to be italicized. I inadvertently used the “a” instead of the “em” tag, and all it will do is bring you to the top of the page.)
Sorry Yonason, the spam blocker grabbed your first post.
It says the more we tell it that someone is not spam, the more it “learns”. I have yet to see it…..
Re: “Let’s test it. I heard this great joke this morning. Hillary and Obama run for President…”
I tune those jokes out, just as I do the “Bush is an idiot” jokes. In each case the only reason to laugh would be shared hatred with the teller. And none of the premises for those joke threads are true. They only raise the hate levels and inject bitterness into disagreements that, while they may never be removed, can at least be calmly acknowledge while preserving the humanity of ones opponent.
.
Re: “Who’s the little troll wannabe with the brush stroke a mile wide that always want to paint conservatives as the evil people who are always licking at the boots of Bush no matter what?”
I never mentioned “boots”.
.
Re: “O.k., but you CAN have both, you know…”
Interesting point…. Actually that was partly the concept behind the Broadway play “Wicked”, which has received great reviews.
Pingback: grand mondial casino bonus code