12/13/03 The Date GWB Won His Second Term

[Aoidoi]

It's only a model!

On second thought, let's not go to Iraq, tis a silly place.

 

[Ion]

Nah about '12/12/03 The Date GWB Won His Second Term'

This strong landmine:

US Supreme Court to hear Cheney Energy Suit Case

can hit.

The case deals with how secret the Administration can be regarding the Energy Plan that Cheney devised.
It must be very heavy if they'd go as far as the US Supreme Court to reverse a US Appeals Court and lower court rulings to show the information regarding how this Energy plan was created.

The US Supreme Court will hear the case in the spring and the judgment will be due in June.
A response that requires the Administration to give up these documents could be very dangerous for them because a ruling by late June would still mean four more months to grandstand, which would be hard seeing they'd have no one else to appeal to.
These documents could really expose the Administration's ties to big business.
I mean expose 'officially' seeing it is aleady known how deep they are with big energy corporations.

However, these documents may not come to light either.
Though it would give Dean an opportunity to speak out against Bush for being so secretive.

In any case, I think this is a landmine that can strike the Bush 2004 campaign.

Hopefully it will be a large blow to Bush.

 

[Tony]

Actually, I only say something about that when you right-wing fanatics lie about my political affiliations.

All the lies in the world won't make me anything other than a right-leaning moderate, corpie.

Is this hyperbole, or are you really this senile?

 

[Thanz]

Keep working Thanz....

There was alot more in that post than just that. But if you like you can bail with the poisoned well caveat....just say that since some item isn't 100% sure, that none of it is worth investigating.

That was the one that immediately jumped out at me, as I had just read the referenced report this morning. It is not my job to correct every one of your misstatements.

Such tactics have worked well for holocaust deniers. Find something to debunk,...then use it to deny the mountain of evidence you wish would go away.

I take exception to you comparing me to a holocaust denier, and nothing in my post should attract such treatment. I picked out one of your statements, and then corrected it.

FACT: Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism

FACT: There is no real evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11, despite all of the implications to the contrary.

FACT: There are many more connecting factors between Saudi Arabia and 9/11 than there are between Iraq and 9/11, yet the USA is buddy-buddy with SA and invades Iraq.

FACT: Saddam not only possessed WMD, but used them on his own people. (unless you think those thousands of Kurds faked it)

FACT: They can't find any of these WMD that they were so scared of that they had to launch an immediate invasion.

 

[The Fool]

I readthis article in the paper. They asked people what kind of question would tehy want to ask Saddam. Almost all of them were "Why did you attack us Saddam?".

I gotta give GW credit. Hes doen a pretty good job of linking 911 wh Saddam in the publics mind.

He has rik conviced.....still, thats not very difficult.

 

[dsm]

"It's the economy, stupid."

"Are you really better off than you were four years ago?"

 

[jj]

Is this hyperbole, or are you really this senile?

The statement is not hyperbole and I am in no fashion senile.

The facts are simple. I am, regardless of your ad-hominem attack, a right-leaning centrist.

Deal with reality, Tony, it will suit you better in the long run.

 

[Gem]

I'd like to vouch for jj since he isn't a leftist. Don't you recall the 2003 blackout thread he started blaming it on de-regulation and environment gone crazy? (I beleive the first was hotly debated, but the second one jj accepted that it had little to do with)

So calling him a leftist isn't going to cut it.

Gem

P.S.:
FACT: The WMD on the kurds were PRE gulf war.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Hey jerk,

Either go back, look at the post in question and address the points I brought up...or shut the f up.

The problem is you and your leftie friends can't. You a-holes have been cheering every soldier killed or maimed for months now and you can't stand it that your little myth of the evil US government is blowing away on the winds of actual revealed reality.

Too damn bad,...that mantra of yours had been catching on for a while among the gullible.....pretty soon the only folks still clinging to it will be the liars and the terminally stupid people who keep believing them.

Behold the elevated discourse!

 

[Lyle Beaudoin]

Like Free Republic without the prayer meetings.

 

[a_unique_person]

So you're saying that the hundreds of americans killed and thousands injured have done so to get Dubya re-elected?

I guess this puts the moon base on the back burner for now.

 

[Hypocolius]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 12/13/03 The Date GWB Won His Second Term

Help! Help! He's opressin me!

Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

 

[subgenius]

Well, I agree with you. Bush didn't fish him out of the hole. However I do give Bush credit for:

Not pulling out of Iraq due to lower polling numbers (pandering)
Not pulling out of Iraq due to negative press coverage
Not pulling out of Iraq due to pressure from some democrats including presidential candidates

So yes, Bush does deserve some credit for Saddam's capture for a few reasons.

A. if Gore had been elected, we would have never liberated Iraq
B. Even amid mounting criticism he stayed the course.

I mention Gore not to attack him but just saying he probably would not have finished the US war against Saddam. I have no idea if he would have invaded Afghanistan but I am pretty certain he would not have invaded Iraq.

How flippin ridiculous. For this guy to get any credit or mileage out of the grunts finding this slimeball is sickening.
"If Gore had been elected..." do you or rik ever have any objective analysis of anything to do with your boy without bringing up some other subject?
OK, to boil it down: if someone other than GWB had been elected and done the same thing as your hero GWB how the heck would they be entitled to any credit for anything an individual soldier did in the field?
Outrageous. You are too young to remember when a president gave all the credit to the folks doing the work and took all the responsibility for when things went bad. That happens to be class.
By the way as your hero would say, and did say today in his press conference "Saddams punishment will be metted out" and the length of our committment will be "commiserate" with the need.
You also don't remember when heads of state could speak their native tongues. If you can't use big words, don't.
How many dead is enough?
How long is enough?
How much money is enough?
Simple questions. Any answers?
"We don't want to burden the Iraqi people with debt."
(Is it OK to saddle the American people with that debt, and why?)

Simple question again: why would any American president who was in office when Iraq was invaded be entitled to any credit for finding Hussein?
Isn't that like taking the credit when your maid flushes the toilet for you?

 

[subgenius]

"You a-holes have been cheering every soldier killed or maimed for months now ...."
Sad to accuse anyone of such a thing. Sad, sad.

 

[Ion]

Don't be naive, corplinx:

Well, I agree with you. Bush didn't fish him out of the hole. However I do give Bush credit for:

Not pulling out of Iraq due to lower polling numbers (pandering)
Not pulling out of Iraq due to negative press coverage
Not pulling out of Iraq due to pressure from some democrats including presidential candidates

So yes, Bush does deserve some credit for Saddam's capture for a few reasons.

A. if Gore had been elected, we would have never liberated Iraq
B. Even amid mounting criticism he stayed the course.
...

In another thread, I posted this:

...
“The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

(Hint: that's why a few posts ago I wrote that Saddam is a smokescreen only, and the U.S. interest for war is deeper than Saddam).

"From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region." - PNAC 1998

(Hint: by "...American interests in the region." here, understand American oil interests in the region which are well documented).

 

[Luke T.]

You a-holes have been cheering every soldier killed or maimed for months now...

-z

Whew! Thanks to subgenious for pointing this out.

Rikzilla! Dude! I'm on your side and even that statement is too much for me, man.

Maybe "rubbing in our faces" in place of "cheering" ?

Carry on.

 

[peptoabysmal]

And why exactly should George personally get the credit for finding him and not the dogfaces digging in the dirt?
Does he get the credit for everything and the blame for nothing?
Pretty good gig.

Seems only fair considering the amount of blame Dubya gets when things don't go right, or when he wins an election by the electoral process.

My analysis is that Bush won't so much win the next election as the Democrats will lose it with their antics.

 

[rikzilla]

"You a-holes have been cheering every soldier killed or maimed for months now ...."
Sad to accuse anyone of such a thing. Sad, sad.

Look, perhaps I was a bit harsh...and I never directly said that of you SG....but the fact is that dems in general and liberals in particular have taken a political position during wartime that puts their political goals at odds with the needs of our troops in Iraq.

Amazingly, instead of being genuinely happy that Saddam has been captured and what it may mean to the safety of our troops.. the dems/libs have grudgingly hailed Saddam's capture while silently lamenting what this may mean to their political chances in the upcoming election. (Only Joe Lieberman has clean hands in this)

How is it that almost an entire US political party, during a time of war, has tied their political fortunes to our enemy's success?

That is what I meant by my less-than-politic comment. In the immortal words of Jimmy Buffett:

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

I got a little carried away by my overpowering feeling of disgust after Howard Dean's last speech. Please forgive.

-z

 

[LFTKBS]

Huh. Even Henry Kissinger just said that he doesn't think there's a link between the attacks on 9/11/01 and Iraq. (Diane Rehm Show, NPR, just now)

But you know how liberal he is . . .

 

[rikzilla]

Huh. Even Henry Kissinger just said that he doesn't think there's a link between the attacks on 9/11/01 and Iraq. (Diane Rehm Show, NPR, just now)

But you know how liberal he is . . .

I'm still waiting for you to address those connections I brought up earlier....or are you going to do the famous liberal ostrich maneuver and forget we ever had that discussion...then just move on and chant the mantra some more??

C'mon...put ur dukes up....

-z