Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
>>>Muslims slaughter each other and you blame America.<<<
How do you figure america is blameless?
"Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists claim.
A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm
>>>Iran has been the largest financial supporter of terrorists actions worldwide<<<
well known to Bush in March 2003 one would assume as was north Korea's capabilities, and Pakistan's terror ties, and Saudi Arabia's terror ties and terror financing. So with all that you can now explain why he cooked up bogus reasons to go into IRAQ...?
>>>WHat about a country that has vowed to wipe Isreal off the map having nuclear weapons- would that qualify as dangerous in your world<<<
Of course it would but might US/Israel middle east policy have anything to do with their nuclear ambition? Or Bush's refusal to talk unless every last demand of his is complied with? Diplomacy without some degree of compromise is not diplomacy but blackmail which most don't respond well to. And remind me now of all Iranian aggression against other countries throughout modern history.
>>>So, it's fine with you if IRan is merely an "accelerant" and provides weapons to the people who are trying to kill us?<<<
no it's not fine but it should be expected when you go around and invade and occupy countries unprovoked and preemptively. No matter where in the world you'd do that you'll have elements sympathetic to the people attacked entering the picture. So where does it end? Attack Iran and other accelerants will be triggered which in turn have to be attacked.
As for "the people who are trying to kill us"........who are they in Iraq? US intelligence reports estimate that only 5%-10% are foreign fighters and the rest locals fighting each other and whoever gets in the way including americans.
The arrogance of Bush and supporters like you stuns the mind. He preemptively invades and occupies an arab country, slaughters upwards of 1/2 million arabs in the process and then express outrage that arabs in neighboring countries have the nerve to meddle in his affairs.
>>>they were actually talking about 2 different things- Pace about material for making bombs- Morrissy about rifles<<<
Material for making bombs? Here's Pace's summary of how he views Iran's involvement:
"On Monday, Gen. Pace said he had no firm knowledge that the Iranian government had sanctioned the arming of the Iraqi insurgents. It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit," Pace told the Voice of America."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/13/iraq/main2466853.shtml
To me Pace is making a general statement about involvement by Iran in supplying some "material" but probably not with the Iranian government's consent. To you he's talking strictly about bomb making material. How do reach that conclusion?
>>>It's amazing how the libs will bend over backwards to defend and protect the same scum who want to wipe Israel off the map<<<
I'm not defending anything. I'm taking what's said about Iran at face value. So far it looks like a rerun of the Iraq smoke screen. Bush is building up a dangerous threat that's NOT confirmed by US intelligence agencies and many military officials. Most recent dissenters.....Pace this morning and the just released NIE report:
"The NIE called Iran, along with al-Qaeda and other extremist groups, "accelerants" whose activities intensify the conflict. But Iran and Iraq's other neighbors, it said, are "not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq's internal sectarian dynamics."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/02/AR2007020200685_pf.html
At this point in the game the confidence you have in the Bush war apparatus is mind boggling. You've learned nothing from the past 5 years?
gee.....I just can't decide who to believe here.....Chairman Of Joint Chiefs Peter Pace or rightwing blogger Ed Morrissey.
>>>The Iranians have not claimed -- yet -- that they managed to lose one-eighth of all the new rifles intended for their police<<<
100 lousy rifles possibly lost and it's the smoking gun for the next war. Meanwhile our own government lost $8.8 billion, possibly into the hands of the enemy. How about declaring war on the american idiots who run this war before declaring war on Iran for screwing up a rifle shipment from Austria?
"The special inspector general for Iraqi reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, said in a January 2005 report that $8.8 billion was unaccounted for after being given to the Iraqi ministries."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/06/iraq.cash.reut/index.html
Top General Backs Away From Iran Claim
Top General Backs Away From Iran Claim
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 13, 2007
(CBS/AP) The top U.S. military officer said Tuesday the discovery that roadside bombs in Iraq contained material made in Iran does not necessarily mean the Iranian government was involved in supplying insurgents.
The comments by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called into question assertions by three senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad on Sunday who said the highest levels of Iranian government were responsible for arming Shiite militants in Iraq with the bombs, blamed for the deaths of more than 170 troops in the U.S.-led coalition.
White House spokesman Tony Snow said Monday he was confident the weaponry was coming with the approval of the Iranian government.
Pace told reporters in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, that U.S. forces hunting militant networks in Iraq that produced roadside bombs had arrested Iranians and some of the materials used in the devices were made in Iran.
"That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this," Pace said. "What it does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers."
In other developments:
A suicide truck bomber blew himself up near a college and a ration office in a mainly Shiite area of the capital Tuesday, killing at least 15 people, officials said, a day after car bombs devastated a Baghdad marketplace. Tuesday's attack, which also wounded 27 people, was the latest in a series of bombings that came despite a U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown aimed at stopping the sectarian violence that has killed hundreds since the start of the year.
Iraq will close its borders with Syria and Iran for 72 hours as part of the drive to secure and pacify Baghdad, the Iraqi commander of the crackdown said Tuesday. Lt. Gen. Abboud Gambar, addressing the nation on behalf of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, did not say when the borders would be closed. A government official said it was expected within two days.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told Iraqi state television that the security operation would begin in the next day or two. The U.S. military announced last week that the sweep was already in progress. But an al-Maliki aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said the operation had not yet begun, as far as the Iraqi government was concerned.
The U.S. military said a soldier was killed Sunday in fighting in volatile Anbar province, west of Baghdad, raising to 42 the number of American deaths this month.
On Monday, Gen. Pace said he had no firm knowledge that the Iranian government had sanctioned the arming of the Iraqi insurgents.
"It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit," Pace told the Voice of America.
Iran denied it gave sophisticated weapons to militants to attack U.S. forces.
"Such accusations cannot be relied upon or be presented as evidence. The United States has a long history in fabricating evidence. Such charges are unacceptable," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters in Tehran.
The Joint Chiefs chairman is the senior military adviser to the president, but he commands no troops and is not in the chain of command that runs from the president to the secretary of defense to commanders in the field.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/13/iraq/main2466853.shtml
>>>Please explian how someone can unintenionally out a covert agent?? That's the pathetic part.<<<
No eddy........the pathetic part is how unbelievably dense you are. For the 50th time.........the law in question requires proof that the person revealing the agent's identity was fully aware of the covert status. How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rove, Libby or Armitage knew full well that Plame was undercover and not just an "analyst"?
What they claim to have done is casually (and intentionally) reveal a CIA employees name, not knowing her identity was classified which is not a crime. That's how you unintentionally out a covert agent and that's how you avoid being charged.
"Eliason said Fitzgerald could be pursuing a perjury or obstruction of justice charge rather than a prosecution under the 1982 law that makes it a crime to reveal the name of a covert operative. He said that for an indictment under that law, Plame would have had to have been a covert operative, Rove would have had to have known she was covert, and information about her status would have to be classified.
`Difficult to Prove'
Victoria Toensing, who was chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence panel when the law was drafted, said it is ``very difficult to prove'' someone violated the statute.'
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aPAumGLz.W9M&refer=top_world_news
You're worse than I thought. All you have the capacity for is to conclude that since there were no indictments for the leak, Plame was obviously not a covert operative. Nothing wrong with keeping it simple but if you have to keep it THAT simple at least stay with simple issues.
oops.......there goes one of your star witnesses eddy.
"Libby's lawyers also are fighting hard to force NBC foreign affairs reporter Andrea Mitchell to testify about why she said that Plame's identity was "widely known" even before the Novak column was published.
Mitchell has since recanted those comments and has said that she cannot explain them."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/12/politics/main2463194.shtml
Ok, so let me understand now. Fitzgerald is a political hack who's lying when he says Plame was undercover. Best buddy of the president, George Tenet is also a political hack who's lying to hurt the WH when he's implying Plame was undercover. And Scooter Libby is telling the truth while 7 witnesses who contradict him are lying. Lastly, if we just paid attention to Andrea Mitchell and Clarice Feldman and ignored everyone else it would all make sense.
Did i hear you accuse me of rationalizing?
>>>Could everyone be wrong, and Libby be right?<<<
If you're a member of the GW cult......of course since anyone trying to serve the master can't possibly be wrong. Torture in violation of international law....why not? Indefinite detention of US citizens without access to counsel.......if he says we need it, it must be a good idea. Uncovering CIA agents involved in the war on terror for political purpose.......big deal.
I'm pathetic, you're the rational one and the case is much ado about nothing by a politically motivated prosecutor. That's your conviction while as usual you refuse the same simple question that goes to the core of it all:
"Sept. 28, 2003: CIA Director George J. Tenet calls on the Justice Department to investigate the leak."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4764919
Why would George Tenet on behalf of the CIA ask the justice department to investigate the leak of the name of a non-covert CIA desk clerk?
You can't answer this or you just don't want to?
>>>Dude, she puched a time clock DAILY.<<<
You rant about time clocks, office duty, Andrea Mitchell, Clarice Feldman (WHO?) but ignore the CIA itself and a prosecutor who everyone except you, Bush friendly bloggers and hardened criminals respect for his integrity and professionalism. This what he opened his press conference with:
"FITZGERALD: The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.
Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html
You have never explained why you keep ignoring this statement. Are you seriously suggesting Fitzgerald would stand before an international press gaggle, reporting on a 2 year investigation and LIE about Plame's official status at the time of the leak? He's clearly identifying Plame as a covert CIA agent at the time of the leak but you say that can't be believed and Andrea Mitchell and Clarice Feldman are better sources for the truth?
"Sept. 28, 2003: CIA Director George J. Tenet calls on the Justice Department to investigate the leak."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4764919
Why would the CIA ask justice to investigate the "leak" of the name of a non-covert CIA desk clerk?
>>>Again, the big question you ignored in your post- if she was covert or undercover why DIDN"T FITZ INDICT ANYONE??<<<
I've explained it to you at least 20 times in the past to no avail so what's the use? But here it is again since you're having problems: The fact that nobody was charged has nothing to do with her actual status at the time but has everything to do with what's required to charge someone with that crime. Biggest hurdle being INTENT.
Fitz would have to prove that Libby, Rove, Armitage or whoever else was involved knew about Plame's covert status when they babbled with reporters and outed her intentionally. Tough to do and he must not have felt good about getting there which is why Libby is facing perjury charges instead. Al Capone was jailed on tax evasion convictions in case you still don't understand how prosecutors sometimes work.
>>>If she was indeed an UNDERCOVER CIA AGENT, why was she punching in daily in VIrginia.<<<
Why doesn't that embarrass you? The only "proof" you have that she was not undercover is the fact that she at times visited the headquarters of her employer.
It's not up to either you, me or crackpot bloggers to decide what an undercover CIA agent can or can not do. More importantly though, the prosecutor in the case as well as other sources have confirmed her true undercover repeatedly based on CIA officials and not on professional Bush apologist's opinions.
"Multiple press outlets reported that Plame was an undercover CIA operative at the time. Citing "intelligence officials," Newsday first reported on July 22, 2003, that prior to her exposure, Plame worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction issues in an "undercover capacity." An October 11, 2003, Knight Ridder article reported that Plame operated under "nonofficial cover," posing as an analyst at a CIA-created shell company, Brewster-Jennings & Associates. An October 13, 2003, Time article confirmed that Plame was involved in tracking weapons of mass destruction.
An October 1, 2003, Washington Post article also quoted intelligence officials confirming Plame's undercover status with the CIA:
Plame currently is an analyst at the CIA. But, intelligence officials said, she previously served overseas in a clandestine capacity, which means her name is kept classified to protect her previous contacts and operations, and her ability to work again undercover overseas.
The Post article discussed the CIA's request that the Justice Department investigate the leak, reporting that the classified status of Plame's identity was part of the criteria weighed in the decision to move forward with the investigation:
Attorney General John D. Ashcroft said yesterday that career lawyers in the Justice Department's counterespionage section opened a criminal investigation Friday, four days after receiving a memo from the CIA detailing a possible violation of federal law that prohibits unauthorized disclosures of classified information."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070001
>>>"working on middle east nuclear proliferation"
I guess you missed this post:<<<
Same crap again. You rely on musings by bloggers and ignore fact based realities.
"On Chris Matthews' Hardball Monday evening, just moments ago, MSNBC correspondent David Shuster confirmed what RAW STORY first reported in February: that outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson was working on Iran at the time she was outed.
According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran.
Reports Shuster in this rush transcript: "INTELLIGENCE SOURCES SAY VALERIE WILSON WAS PART OF AN OPERATION THREE YEARS AGO TRACKING THE PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS MATERIAL INTO IRAN. AND THE SOURCES ALLEGE THAT WHEN MRS. WILSON'S COVER WAS BLOWN, THE ADMINISTRATION'S ABILITY TO TRACK IRAN'S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS WAS DAMAGED AS WELL."
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_confirms_Raw_Story_report_Outed_0501.html
You have NOTHING but rightwing garbage to back your claims. Not a single statement by the prosecutor and not a single statement by a present or former CIA official. Pathetic.
I'm probably asking too much but try to read that piece of trash you posted with an objective mind. Try to understand that the one and only purpose of it is to white wash with lies and condescending bullshit the Bush administration's involvement in the outing of an UNDERCOVER CIA agent for political purposes.
First such event in US history and certainly the first time an administration fighting the threat of middle east terrorist nuclear attacks uncovers a CIA agent working on middle east nuclear proliferation.
Whether the outing can be proved to be deliberate or not is irrelevant imo. This is an administration that's obsessed with national security, with the war on terror and with protecting sources and methods. What business did they have gossiping and playing games with Plame's CIA identity while at war and while complaining openly about the lack of reliable intelligence from Iran and Iraq?
Amazingly.......after 2 years of this, you and your pathetic blog friends still refuse to accept that Plame WAS a clandestine agent at the time of the outing which is equally moronic to someone refusing to accept that GW Bush is CIC. You may not like either one but both are facts that have yet to be proven false.
"FITZGERALD: The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.
Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."
(how do you blow a cover of an agent who doesn't have one? I've asked you before. How about an answer?)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html
"An important and provocative report has just been published that suggests that Iran was the target of much of Valerie Plame's covert investigative work and that outing her identity had far worse consequences than has thus far been acknowledged."
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001246.php
"But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in non-conventional weapons who worked overseas, had "nonofficial cover", and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a NOC, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create. While most undercover agency officers disguise their real profession by pretending to be American embassy diplomats or other United States government employees, Ms. Plame passed herself off as a private energy expert. Intelligence experts said that NOCs have especially dangerous jobs."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame
Bullet proof and reality proof. 6 witnesses have testified to the fact that Libby lied under oath but they actually got one witness to stumble a bit on an unrelated matter which means Libby should go free.
>>>Gee, well Russert and Cooper contradict Libby- must mean the game is over, huh??<<<
Any particular reason you chose not to mention contradictions by WH friendly Ari Fleischer, Judy Miller and Cathie Martin? Except that their damage to Libby is harder to spin?
>>>The title was about the judge throwing out one of the counts of the indictment.<<<
One out of five felony indictments thrown out. Gasping for straws here?
>>>The coverage I've read seem on balance favorable for Libby, but time will tell<<<
How do you say that with a straight face when every single witness called so far has corroborated the charges against him?
You guys are really amazing. When Clinton lied under oath you wanted him hung from the highest tree since it was such a god awful crime. Now it's one of your own and not even damaging testimony from a current WH employee can convince you that a neocon may have done something wrong. And even if he did you seem to think it's not a big deal because he probably meant well.
>>>Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns said the US has been tracking Iran's activity in supplying weapons in the Iraq war.<<<
So what. Seems like US government activity has helped to supply weapons too.
"Bills weighing a total of 363 tons were loaded onto military aircraft in the largest cash shipments ever made by the Federal Reserve, said Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. (Watch Democrats put the former top U.S. official in Iraq on the spot )
"Who in their right mind would send 363 tons of cash into a war zone? But that's exactly what our government did," the California Democrat said during a hearing reviewing possible waste, fraud and abuse of funds in Iraq.
Democrats led by Waxman also questioned whether the lack of oversight of $12 billion in Iraqi money that was disbursed by Bremer and the CPA somehow enabled insurgents to get their hands on the funds, possibly through falsifying names on the government payroll."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/06/iraq.cash.reut/index.html
Besides....the latest NIE report says Bush is blowing smoke again:
"Iran is “not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability”
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/02/iraq-nie-released/
>>>Libby trial: It smells like victory... of a sort.<<<
If this smells like victory I hate to see defeat:
"The testimony of Cathie Martin has been by far the most damaging so far to Scooter Libby’s case. She is currently a Deputy Communications Secretary for the Bush White House and worked for Vice President Cheney during the period in question, so it will be difficult to impeach her credibility or motives."
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/01/libby_trial_cathie_martins_testimony_damaging/
"Miller Contradicts Libby In CIA Leak Trial
Reporter Testifies Cheney's Ex-Aide ID'd Valerie Plame Earlier Than Libby Has Claimed"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/31/politics/main2417562.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories
"Former Bush spokesman contradicts Libby's timeline
Former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer testified Monday that Lewis "Scooter" Libby told him about a CIA operative three days before the date Libby claims he received the information from a reporter."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/29/cia.leak/index.html
"Libby Trial: Matt Cooper Contradicts Libby
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=162135
"Tim Russert Contradicts Libby's Testimony
"Meet The Press" Anchor Tells Courtroom He Never Discussed CIA Operative With Former Cheney Aide"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/07/politics/main2443275.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories
Speaking of definitions....what about "stalker"?
A profile in stupidity
A Bush supporter puts right wing logic on public display. Is there a single sentence in this letter to the editor that doesn't contain a factual error?
Leaving Iraq will activate terrorists
Bring our troops home? My common sense tells me that if we leave Iraq abruptly, these things will happen:
The terrorists will take over and kill the people of Iraq who applauded getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Then Osama bin Laden will come out of his hole, devise more plans, activate the terrorists he has on hand -- plus the ones already in our country -- and start blowing us all to hell. Our children and grandchildren will live in fear of going out of their homes -- to school, to the grocery store and so on.
We Americans are not perfect but we don't chop off people's heads and strap on bombs and blow up ourselves and whomever is in harm's way.
So I ask the big question. How are we going to keep all this from happening unless we stay the course?
President Bush's plan makes sense to me. Bush, on his watch, as he puts it, has kept us safe for more than five years. We cannot be naive children and let the terrorists win. We must be able to continue to live free, speak out and practice our religious beliefs or nonbeliefs.
Jean Tomich
Venice
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070207/OPINION/702070430/-1/Help0530
"Bush sneaking North American super-state without oversight?"
"Despite having no authorization from Congress, the Bush administration has launched extensive working-group activity to implement a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada.
The membership of the working groups has not been published, nor has their work product been disclosed, despite two years of massive effort within the executive branches of the U.S., Mexico and Canada.
The groups, working under the North American Free Trade Agreement office in the Department of Commerce, are to implement the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP, signed by President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005.
The trilateral agreement, signed as a joint declaration not submitted to Congress for review, led to the creation of the SPP office within the Department of Commerce.
The SPP report to the heads of state of the U.S., Mexico and Canada, -- released June 27, 2005, -- lists some 20 different working groups spanning a wide variety of issues ranging from e-commerce, to aviation policy, to borders and immigration, involving the activity of multiple U.S. government agencies.
The working groups have produced a number of memorandums of understanding and trilateral declarations of agreement.
WND can find no specific congressional legislation authorizing the SPP working groups. "
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50618
>>>Most people are like stupid cows<<<
What's the figure again.....90% of all humans don't like the responsibility that comes with taking charge so they prefer to be told what to do? Applies to their thought process too. More comforting to take the word of someone who speaks with authority than to evaluate on your own.
>>>Probably was too much to hope for so soon.<<<
Actually.....some republicans (only those in tight races as it turned out) started to ask questions last year but that's where it ended. Once their reelection was secure it was back to Bush pandering and Bush policy rubber stamping again.
I'd put good money on the past 6 year's congress going down in the books as the most pathetic and most unpatriotic in US history.
"Congress’s oversight authority derives from its “implied” powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_oversight
>>>as clinton stated, people will follow a leader who is strong and wrong as opposed to one who is weak and right..<<<
And as Bush is demonstrating, people will follow - then abandon a leader who scare people into thinking he's strong and right but turn out to be weak and wrong.
>>>why are the Dems so weak in getting people on their side?<<<
Because their entire act is weak. Who wants to hang with weaklings? Big part of why the republicans still have friends at all imo. They're on the wrong side of just about every single issue as far as the general public is concerned but they have conviction and they kick ass which creates followers.
>>>Why are the Reps afraid to debate the war in Iraq?<<<
Orders from the WH. These are the same whores that's been licking George's boots for the past 6 years. Didn't think they would just stop because we had an election did you :)
>>>You are such a joke!<<<
Ok, so in a national survey on who best fits the definition of a joke, who do you think would prevail? Those who comment on Bush's ineptitude and stupidity or guys like you who would crawl for miles through broken glass for a chance to defend him?
>>>as a nation we may well never recover from the divisions it has caused..<<<
Seen this?
"The survey, which polled the views of nearly 900 randomly chosen respondents equally divided between Bush supporters and those intending to vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, found a yawning gap in the world views, particularly as regards pre-war Iraq, between the two groups.
“To support the president and to accept that he took the U.S. to war based on mistaken assumptions,” said Kull, “likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about pre-war Iraq.”
Kull added that this “cognitive dissonance” could also help explain other remarkable findings in the survey, particularly with respect to Bush supporters’ misperceptions about the president’s own positions.
“The roots of the Bush supporters’ resistance to information very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally into the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in its immediate wake,” he said.
“This appears to have created a powerful bond between Bush and his supporters – and an idealized image of the President that makes it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments before the war, that world public opinion would be critical of his policies or that the president could hold foreign-policy positions that are at odds with his supporters.”
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1022-01.htm
Or in plain english........9/11 created delusional minds that can't be reasoned with.
I know about the Bush doctrine. What I'm asking is where he get his faith in the doctrine from? I bet he can't find half the countries mentioned in the doctrine on a world map, much less tell you anything about each country's respective history so he relies or has relied on others. The same others who guided him into Iraq presumably. So is he still relying on them (or it) or has he taken charge himself now that those others have helped him destroy his legacy and america's good name?
People are talking about this you know. Getting a little weird now with Bush, Cheney and Mitch McConnell against the rest of the country.
>>>I believe Bush has admitted mistakes.<<<
Figures. Whenever anything or anyone is mentioned for historical perspective some simpleton just has to chime in and point out that his guy, his town or his ball team deserves mention too.
And I did say Nixon "came to mind". Maybe Bush didn't come to mind because he had to embarrass himself at a national press conference and then be properly trained and programmed before reluctantly admitting - a year later - that mistakes have been made.
"After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?
THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html
>>>No government ever admits its errors<<<
Sure they do. Not often but it happens. Richard Nixon comes to mind who first admitted to mistakes and later resigned.
"The President acknowledged that he had "made a mistake" in not more closely supervising campaign activities."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2002/06/03/AR2005112200801.html
>>>...it's only soldier's lives...<<<
And money. 28 YEARS worth of annual homeland security budgets have been wasted in Iraq to date.
"Feb. 4, 2007 — The price tag for the Iraq War is now estimated at $700 billion in direct costs and perhaps twice that much when indirect expenditures are included. Cost estimates vary — Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz puts the total cost at more than $2 trillion — but let's be conservative and say it's only $1 trillion (in today's dollars).
The cost of the war can also be expressed as approximately 28 HS's, where HS, the annual budget for the Department of Homeland Security, is about $35 billion. Really securing the ports and chemical plants would have only eaten up a few of these HS's. A few more could have been usefully spent in Afghanistan."
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=2844304&page=2
>>>I say leave the Iraqis to sort it out among themselves,<<<
They probably would already if Karl Rove hadn't turned that solution into a campaign slogan (cut'n run). So now it's a non-starter since Bush republicans would rather dissolve into cosmic dust than admitting to miscalculation or worst of all......a mistake. It's only soldier's lives being wasted for that miniscule possibility that they could end up being vindicated sometime in the distant future.
>>>Want to guess how many votes Feingold gets on his BINDING resolution -- LOL<<<
Probably one by Dennis Kucinich. They're all talking like him but he'd be the only one actually voting his conscience.
Think you know what Bush's true conviction is? What's guiding him? We know it's not a majority of the generals in the actual war zone and we know it's not congress or the people's voice. So is it Cheney, Rove, Jesus or "the base" which expects him to be resolute?
>>>you bet against the US military I am of the opinion that they cannot be defeated<<<
I wouldn't bet against them in a conventional war against a conventional enemy. But here they've been asked to march into an arab city of 6 million civilians and try to figure out who hates them before they get killed and it's obviously not working.
Anyone who at this point insists they should continue trying to make it work can't reasonably be perceived as a supporter of the troops.
>>>I love my AK47. Best dang assault rifle in the world.<<<
Glad to hear it makes your day seem brighter. But the question wasn't whether AK 47's make their owners happy or not but whether Iraqi AK 47's and roadside bombs posed a threat to america and forced Bush to go to war. Turns out that's about all they had as UN inspectors were finding out which is what got them fired.
Easy enough to understand but totally irrelevant as an analogy to the Iraq/SH situation. Except perhaps for the AK 47 reference which is about all they had in terms of threatening america which in turn makes the war illegal as it relates to the war resolution.
You don't have good answers to basic questions about this and to be frank, I wouldn't have any either if I sat where you're sitting. Some conservatives are smarter than others though and some even have integrity. Like Pat Buchanan who earlier today on MSNBC said that not only is the war probably lost but it may also have led to the beginning of the end of meaningful american influence in the ME.
>>>(stay out of tall buildings and major cities -- until the job is done)<<<
You're the perfect citizen hap.......by Bush/Cheney standards. They tell you to be scared, you get scared, they tell you the war in Iraq is making you safer and you believe it and Bush tells you he's fighter pilot and a warrior and you brag about just that on his behalf.
All good and well until you get falsely accused of having ties with terrorists and you stand before smirking creep Gonzales who'll smirk some more at your defense of being a Bush supporter and your request for due process and then swiftly ship you off to Syria.
>>>is without any merit what-so-ever it is merely opinion based on hindsight about no STOCKPILES of WMDs<<<
You have it exactly backwards. The point is that there wouldn't be any reason to apply hindsight about WMD if Bush had allowed the inspection process to run its course. He yanked them out before they were done and then - after the invasion and the overthrow of SH - he sent his own team of inspectors led by David Kay in to validate his war which of course wasn't possible.
Can you think of another reason for Bush interrupting the inspection process other than fearing his main reason for going to war may have been crushed had he allowed the inspections to go on? (war as a last resort my ass)
>>>Every other factor for the overthrow of SH is still applicable<<<
Wrong again. As I showed you yesterday, paragraph (1) of the war resolution states Iraq must pose a threat to america for the resolution to be enforceable.
"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm
Note that the resolution states "continuing threat posed by Iraq; and.....not or any of the subsequent requirements. In other words, if Iraq doesn't pose a threat to the US it doesn't matter how rotten of a man SH is or how many UN resolutions he's ignored.
I see you don't like my question much or maybe you misunderstood. Here again:
Why did he give SH 48 hours notice knowing full well UN inspectors were in the middle of finding out whether the war was even necessary, let alone in compliance with congess' war resolution?