Cindy's own words

[clk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: R

Simply put, this cannot be done within the next 20 years (if ever), and even if it could be, we cannot wean the rest of the world off of Saudi oil either. It's simply not possible, because they have among the cheapest-to-produce oil in the world. Someone will always be willing to buy it. Drop demand significantly and you'll freeze out high-cost producers, not low-cost producers.

More than one fallacy packed into this single sentence. We CANNOT stop buying Saudi oil. Or more precisely, we cannot stop demand for Saudi oil, whether it comes from us, from China, from Japan, from India, from Europe, or wherever. Saudi Arabia is a low-cost producer. They will always have a market for oil, so long as they have oil and people need it. Neither condition will change within the next twenty years (and possibly much longer). We cannot wait this problem out.

The second fallacy is that crippling their economy will force them to change. Well, in the sense that everyone always changes in response to changing conditions, yes. But not in the sense that they'd have to liberalize at all. Saddam absolutely WRECKED the Iraqi economy. Simply devastated it. Did his regime respond by liberalizing? No, it did not. Why this blind faith that wrecking Saudi Arabia's economy magically means that they'll have to liberalize? It's NEVER worked on totalitarian governments before, what makes you think that it would suddenly prove effective here?



This is a slogan, not a plan. Pressure by what means? Who would go along with this? Certainly not Russia and China: they'd get rather nervous at the idea of democracies forcing liberalization on authoritarian governments (wonder why?). Europe? Maybe some of them, but that would be a hard sell too: plenty of people in France and Germany, for example, think the middle east is screwed up BECAUSE of the US, so why would they take significant risk to help us fix the problem? And then you get to places like Africa, where the dictator's club is more likely to support their fellow tyrants AGAINST the US than to demand social reforms. International support? There was always less of it than most people imagine, especially when you're talking about translating that into concrete action.



Bwahahahaha! You think they'd take that threat seriously? First off, 10 years is to long to not be making progress. Second, they don't need to sell their oil to us. They just sell it to other countries. Oil is fungible. Our refusal to buy directly from them (something we would NOT be able to get everyone to go along with - especially countries like China) would have almost no impact whatsoever. Remember: oil is fungible. Keep repeating that, because it's something you've got to start learning if you want to understand any of this, and so far, you clearly don't.



Sanctions? You think China, for example, would be willing to cooperate? Fat chance. They'd gladly serve as the middle man, take a small profit, and let Saudi Arabia continue on their current path with just a slight increase in costs. Sanctions have a track record of failure against despotic regimes, ESPECIALLY ones with large oil reserves. They might feel a pinch, but they'd survive just fine. Saddam did, and he had only a fraction of the oil output Saudi Arabia has, as well as a united UN security council to enforce those sanctions, something you've got to be smoking crack to believe we could ever achieve with Saudi Arabia.



That's fine and all, but you've GOT to be kidding me if you think this is actually a solution. It's helpful, but it's not enough, not by a LONG shot. We cannot drastically change our own energy consumption demands overnight, nor will our own increased efficiencies translate into a significant drop in GLOBAL energy demands.

And as I already pointed out above, drops in oil prices force out high-cost producers first. Saudi Arabia is the ultimate low-cost producer. They may feel a pinch, but they will ALWAYS have a market for their oil. Always. Remember: oil is fungible. Look it up.



Like I said, when has that EVER worked for ANY totalitarian government?

You don't have a workable plan for dealing with Saudi Arabia. I don't really fault you for that: nobody really does, because they've got the world by the shorthairs. But since you DON'T have a workable plan, there's no point in trying to pretend that we shouldn't have gotten rid of Saddam because we should have been dealing with Saudi Arabia instead.

Firstly, we can at the very least control how much oil we purchase from Saudi Arabia. We get 20% of our imports from the Persian Gulf, and 40% of our imports from OPEC. We consume 8 million barrels of oil per day. 2 million of those come from the mid East. If the average fuel economy of new cars and light trucks could reach 42 MPG by 2010 and 58 MPG by 2020 (compared to 24 MPG today), this would reduce U.S. oil use by 2.2 million barrels per day (MBD) by 2010 and 4.6 MBD by 2020. This results in a $44 billion loss per year to the Middle East. That is about 15% of Saudi's GDP. When the US loses 1 or 2% of our GDP, it is a major recession. Do you have any idea what a 15% reduction in a country's GDP does? Secondly, you say that China will buy the oil. True, but they're not going to buy 730 million barrels extra per year just for the hell of it. They will only buy that much if they need it. Therefore, it's clear that a total US boycott of Saudi oil will have a very significant impact on Saudi Arabia.

And let's say that you're right. Let's suppose that China will buy all of the extra oil that the US stopped buying from Saudi Arabia. Even if that is the case, the advantages of the US no longer depending on Saudi oil are multiple and obvious. At the very least, Saudi Arabia would cease to be as great of a threat as it is now. They no longer can affect our economy by reducing oil exports. If anything, we should undertake my plan even if that is the one and only benefit, because it is undoubtedly worth it.

 

[Daylight]

You honestly think that calling terrorists "freedom fighters" represents merely a bad word choice? I'm sorry, but that's bull. That's no small distinction, that's no slip of the tongue, that's someone who actually thinks they're doing the right thing. That is a woman who supports terrorists. Yeah, it's a bad word choice, in the sense that it exposed how warped her perspective actually is.



Because the foreign fighters flowing into Iraq are NOT "freedom fighters". They are terrorists, and they do not fight for freedom but for oppression. That is not a fine distinction, and it makes what she said NOT true, but a horrible lie, a lie that excuses their killing of her son. I didn't make her out to be the bad guy, she chose that role herself, all I'm doing is exposing the choice that she made when she decided that those who kidnap retarded children to send them to kill people for voting had a higher moral standing than the US troops and Iraqi soldiers who made that first Iraqi election possible or the 8 million Iraqis who risked their lives to have their voices heard peacefully.

You’re letting your Republican side distort things by focusing on just two words and throwing out the rest. I don’t call them terrorists either, are you going to call me a terrorist supporter too? I call them donkeyholes. So lets substitute my word in to her statement:

"donkeyholes from other countries are going in"

Am I terrorist supporter now? Does this get me on the "Do Not Fly" list? Is the meaning of the statement changed? Is this still a true statement? Yes. It doesn’t matter what label you use. And it doesn't make you a bad guy supporter.

You need to face the fact that Bush and friends have shown total incompetence from day one with regards to this war and don’t appear to give a rat’s fanny perpendicular to fix it. Anyone that doesn’t parrot the party line is fired or disciplined. Bush and friends have created a mess and they need to be held accountable.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: R

Firstly, we can at the very least control how much oil we purchase from Saudi Arabia.

And I keep having to tell you: that doesn't make ANY difference. Oil is fungible.

We get 20% of our imports from the Persian Gulf, and 40% of our imports from OPEC. We consume 8 million barrels of oil per day. 2 million of those come from the mid East. If the average fuel economy of new cars and light trucks could reach 42 MPG by 2010 and 58 MPG by 2020 (compared to 24 MPG today), this would reduce U.S. oil use by 2.2 million barrels per day (MBD) by 2010 and 4.6 MBD by 2020. This results in a $44 billion loss per year to the Middle East. That is about 15% of Saudi's GNP. When the US loses 1 or 2% of our GDP, it is a major recession. Do you have any idea what a 15% reduction in a country's GDP does?

Do you have any idea of how far off the mark you are, and how badly you misunderstand basic economics?

First off, we CANNOT control how much oil Saudi Arabia sells. If we decrease the amount that we buy from them, then the global price of oil will drop. That price decrease will actually drive UP consumption in other countries, so the global decrease in fuel consumption will be less than our decrease. Now, how does this affect Saudi Arabia? It means a drop in PRICE for their oil, but it does NOT mean that they will sell less oil. In fact, they can compensate by selling MORE oil if they want. Why? Because they are a LOW COST PRODUCER. They can produce oil at lower costs than almost anyone else. It is the expensive producers that will cut back on production when prices drop, NOT the Saudis.

And as for a 15% cut in GDP, you're still operating on blind faith that this will actually have the effect you hope. Again, when has economic pressure alone EVER forced a totalitarian government to liberalize? Iraq's economy plummeted by a lot more than 15%, and Saddam held on. North Korea's has been stagnating for decades, and is essentially in freefall right now, but Kim Jungle is hanging on still, and he hasn't even got oil. Mugabe basically voluntarily destroyed Zimbabwe's economy in order to tighten his grip on that country. What makes you so sure economic pressure would lead to liberalization, and not further radicalization?

Secondly, you say that China will buy the oil. True, but they're not going to buy 730 million barrels extra per year just for the hell of it. They will only buy that much if they need it. Therefore, it's clear that a total US boycott of Saudi oil will have a very significant impact on Saudi Arabia.

But they aren't the only ones. Oil is a fungible commodity, and the market is global. In practice, a US boycott of Saudi oil really means that we'll have to buy more oil from other sources. Those sources will sell a greater fraction of their oil to us than to their other customers, and those other customers will make that up by buying more from Saudi Arabia. You cannot boycott a fungible global commodity based on source. It simply isn't possible. The ONLY way to cut them off is a blockade, which, as pointed out, simply isn't possible. I used China as one example, but really, they're hardly going to be the only ones.

Even if that is the case, the advantages of the US no longer depending on Saudi oil are multiple and obvious. At the very least, Saudi Arabia would cease to be as great of a threat as it is now. They no longer can affect our economy by reducing oil exports.

No, I'm afraid you're still wrong. As long as we depend on oil imports (and again, while we might be able to decrease that, we sure as hell can't eliminate it), then our economy will be affected by oil prices, and those prices are determined by global supply and demand. And regardless of whether they're selling oil to us or to other countries, Saudi Arabia will STILL be able to greatly influence world oil prices by determining their output levels. There's simply no way around this.

Increased fuel efficiency helps, but it hardly solves the problem, and it sure as hell can't force Saudi Arabia to liberalize. I'm in favor of doing it because there's long-term benefits, but it hardly substitutes for trying to tackle the problem of Islamist terrorism right now.

 

[Ziggurat]

You’re letting your Republican side distort things by focusing on just two words and throwing out the rest.

Hardly. Rather, I understand what those two words actually mean. You, however, are intent on excusing them because you like the other things she says. I am unimpressed with your appologetics.

I don’t call them terrorists either, are you going to call me a terrorist supporter too?

If you call them "freedom fighters" or "heroes" or "patriots" or other complimentary terms, then yes, I would call you a terrorist supporter. What's hard to figure out about that? And would you ever label them with complimentary terms? I frankly don't care if you call them "insurgents" or "militants" or just "fighters" or "donkeyholes" - a decision to refrain from making a moral judgment is unimpressive, but acceptable. But that's not what she did. She made a moral judgment that those terrorists were the good guys. That's what the term "freedom fighter" means. Do that, and HELL yes, I'll call you a terrorist supporter. This really isn't complicated, unless you're scrambling to find excuses for how she can sympathize with Zarqawi and the other thugs who killed her own son. Now THAT takes some contortions. You can keep talking about how Bush screwed up, or lied, or whatever to your heart's content, but that doesn't absolve Cindy from publicly supporting the very worst elements of humanity, of trying to portray the enemies of civilization as heroes.

 

[Manny]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: R

Do you have any idea what a 15% reduction in a country's GDP does?

Given that Saudi Arabia's GDP per capita dropped at 1%/year in real terms over the course of the 1990's I've actually got a pretty good idea, thanks. If you open another thread we can discuss it.

This thread, however, is about Cindy Sheehan "in her own words." So I'll pose to you the question no one else wants to answer. Based on her own words, Cindy Sheehan is a terrorist supporter. What weight should I assign to the arguments of a terrorist supporter and what weight should I assign to an alleged "anti-war" movement which so eagerly rallies around such a person?

 

[RandFan]

This really isn't complicated, unless you're scrambling to find excuses for how she can sympathize with Zarqawi and the other thugs who killed her own son. Now THAT takes some contortions. You can keep talking about how Bush screwed up, or lied, or whatever to your heart's content, but that doesn't absolve Cindy from publicly supporting the very worst elements of humanity, of trying to portray the enemies of civilization as heroes.

 

[clk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: R

No, I'm afraid you're still wrong. As long as we depend on oil imports (and again, while we might be able to decrease that, we sure as hell can't eliminate it), then our economy will be affected by oil prices, and those prices are determined by global supply and demand.

We can go a long ways to free ourselves from oil imports. As I said, we can build breeder reactors to replace any oil/petroleum power plants as well as increase mileage standards on cars. We can drill in ANWR. The point is, it is definitely feasible to become self-reliant on oil. And this will reduce the national security threat of countries like Saudi Arabia, mainly because their actions have a smaller effect on the US economy.
But I won't derail this thread more than I already have.

 

[Daylight]

Hardly. Rather, I understand what those two words actually mean. You, however, are intent on excusing them because you like the other things she says. I am unimpressed with your appologetics.



If you call them "freedom fighters" or "heroes" or "patriots" or other complimentary terms, then yes, I would call you a terrorist supporter. What's hard to figure out about that? And would you ever label them with complimentary terms? I frankly don't care if you call them "insurgents" or "militants" or just "fighters" or "donkeyholes" - a decision to refrain from making a moral judgment is unimpressive, but acceptable. But that's not what she did. She made a moral judgment that those terrorists were the good guys. That's what the term "freedom fighter" means. Do that, and HELL yes, I'll call you a terrorist supporter. This really isn't complicated, unless you're scrambling to find excuses for how she can sympathize with Zarqawi and the other thugs who killed her own son. Now THAT takes some contortions. You can keep talking about how Bush screwed up, or lied, or whatever to your heart's content, but that doesn't absolve Cindy from publicly supporting the very worst elements of humanity, of trying to portray the enemies of civilization as heroes.

I think you’re just reading too much into two words.

Couldn’t we say Bush is a much bigger terrorist supporter because he gave them a place to train? And even worse made it difficult for the US troops to fight the bad guys?

 

[Ziggurat]

I think you’re just reading too much into two words.

I think you're refusing to recognize what those words really mean. They're hardly ambiguous.

Couldn’t we say Bush is a much bigger terrorist supporter because he gave them a place to train? And even worse made it difficult for the US troops to fight the bad guys?

Translation: couldn't we just accept my opinion about events and not debate them?

No, we cannot just do that. I do not agree with that assessment at all.

And the only equivalency between that and whether or not we excuse Sheehan's support for terrorists is if you want to argue that those terrorists really are freedom fighters. Is that honestly the position you want to take?

And why is it so hard for you to acknowlege that Cindy is a terrorist supporter? Hell, it's not like I'm going to conclude that you therefore support Bush, I'm fully aware of the possibility of opposing both Bush and terrorism. But why is everyone on the anti-war side so reluctant to label her for the lunatic she has so clearly become? Where are her critics on the anti-war side who disavow her support for terrorists? Do they not exist? And if not, how am I to take that as anything other than an indication that the anti-war crowd is also largely sympathetic to terrorists? Hell, it's not like there aren't Bush critics in the pro-war crowd - if you need help finding them, I can even point you in the right direction.

 

[joe1347]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: R

We can go a long ways to free ourselves from oil imports. As I said, we can build breeder reactors to replace any oil/petroleum power plants as well as increase mileage standards on cars. We can drill in ANWR. The point is, it is definitely feasible to become self-reliant on oil. And this will reduce the national security threat of countries like Saudi Arabia, mainly because their actions have a smaller effect on the US economy.
But I won't derail this thread more than I already have.

Sorry, but assuming that peak oil is true, the situation is even more serious than enriching the Saudi Wahabi's. It's starting to look like we don't need to just reduce our reliance on imported oil (i.e, the middle east) - we need to reduce our reliance on traditional oil (light sweet crude) period to sustain or improve on our quality of life - because the world is starting to run out of the cheap oil that we've come to rely on. This seems to be an overly obvious concept (at least to me), but for some reason it's just not penetrating into the mainstream media.

 

[Orwell]

Too bad Cindy hasn't decided this distinction is worth pointing out. But she used the term "freedom fighter" specifically for those coming in from outside Iraq, and we know that the foreign jihadis are very much involved in attacking Iraqi civilian targets. If she wants to make a distinction between categories of foreign jihadis, then I suggest she MAKE that distinction, but in the absence of statements to that effect (which she clearly did not make in that interview), then she can only be presumed to be calling those foreign fighters, as a group, "freedom fighters". In other words, she's dignifying terrorists with a label of respect.

Why do you assume I agree with something I have not stated an opinion on? If you want to know, I suggest you ask. Until then, do not presume to tell me what my opinions are. Your accusation that I can't have it both ways is meaningless: I have not tried to have it both ways. But I do note that you cannot stand to distance yourself from Sheehan without attacking what you incorrectly view as my own opinions on the topic.

"In general" is a copout on your part. She supports terrorists. I don't care if she only supports some fraction of terrorists, the fact remains, she supports terrorists. And the excuse of "informal interview" is no excuse at all - in fact, it's possible that you'll get a more honest opinion, not the polished PR spin, in such an informal setting.

So this american mom who lost her son in Iraq is a terrorist supporter. Okee dokee... She would be right there cheering while them planes hit them buildings, right? That's what you seem to be implying, Zig!

Who the hell is Lynne Stewart and why is this relevant?

 

[Orwell]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: R

Estimates are that the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has enough oil in it to replace all the oil we buy from Saudi Arabia for 23 years.

Do you support drilling in the ANWR?

Although that statistic is true (I think), I believe we should look at the big picture instead.

In assessing the amount of oil, scientists used basic geology, recovery factors, and costs to determine economically retrievable resources. From this analysis, geologists discovered that the recoverable oil is n ot uniformly dispersed in the 1002 area. The amount of technically attainable petroleum resources ranges between 4.3 and 11.8 BBO (95% and 5% probablities). This estimate exceeds earlier calculations because of the improved resolution of the reprocessed seismic data. Furthermore, the USGS concludes that 2.4 BBO are economically recoverable at $18 per barrel, while 3.2 BBO are economically recoverable at $20 per barrel. No oil is economically retrievable at a market price less than $15 per barrel.

http://www.agiweb.org/legis105/anwr.html

The United States consumed an average of about 20.4 million bbl/d of oil during the first ten months of 2004, up from 20.0 million bbl/d in 2003.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html

Oil in the ANWR would last the US about 550 days.

It is clear to me that the only way you can diminish oil dependency is to consume less oil.

 

[WildCat]

So this american mom who lost her son in Iraq is a terrorist supporter. Okee dokee... She would be right there cheering while them planes hit them buildings. That's what you seem to be implying, Zig!

Who the hell is Lynne Stewart and why is this relevant?

Some reading for you. I'm certainly not qualified to comment on why a mother who lost her son in Iraq would speak at an event where the flyer below was handed out, but she did.

 

[RandFan]

So this american mom who lost her son in Iraq is a terrorist supporter. Okee dokee... She would be right there cheering while them planes hit them buildings, right? That's what you seem to be implying, Zig!

I think he is saying she supports terrorists. I think he is correct. Would she cheer the planes hitting the towers? I wouldn't make that leap. But supporting the folks who are targeting Iraqi citizens and American soldiers through terror sure seem to me to be supporting terrorists. Maybe there is something I'm missing.

I think Cindy has moved from a grieving woman who has lost a son and has a legitimate grievance to a celebrity with political prominence. And maybe that is cool. I don't know. If my son were killed in a war that I opposed I might do the same thing. However, I certainly wouldn't support those who are killing Americans and innocent Iraqis. I had a level of respect for her when this happened and was seriously pained for her. I still am sorry for her loss and the break up of her marriage but I don't have much respect for her anymore. She never had any respect for the president why did she pretend that her meeting was ever a serious possibility. What leader meets with people who only hold them in contempt?

 

[SezMe]

And why is it so hard for you to acknowlege that Cindy is a terrorist supporter? Hell, it's not like I'm going to conclude that you therefore support Bush, I'm fully aware of the possibility of opposing both Bush and terrorism. But why is everyone on the anti-war side so reluctant to label her for the lunatic she has so clearly become? Where are her critics on the anti-war side who disavow her support for terrorists? Do they not exist? And if not, how am I to take that as anything other than an indication that the anti-war crowd is also largely sympathetic to terrorists? Hell, it's not like there aren't Bush critics in the pro-war crowd - if you need help finding them, I can even point you in the right direction.

Zig, you have labeled Sheehan a "terrorist supporter" and now a "lunatic" both of which seem extreme to me. Then you suggest that people who are against the war are "largely sympathetic to terrorists."

I don't approve all of what Sheehan is doing. But I don't think that implies that I (or any of her supporters) need to call her a "lunatic." And your characterization of the anti-war movement is extreme to a fault. For a middle-of-the-roader like me, your language leaves you with little or no credibility.

When Bush went for his hand-in-hand stroll with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia - the country which supplied 15 of the 19 hijackers - would that have been justification for calling Bush and the right wing, "largely sympathetic to terrorists"? Why not?

 

[Orwell]

So she's responsible for the opinions of every one who supports her?

By the way, you cannot equate all of the Iraqi resistance with "terrorism".
I can easily understand that many Iraqis simply don't like the US occupation and want the US out by any means necessary. I mean, if I was some Iraqi kid raised to be a good patriotic Iraqi and a decent Muslim instead of being some lazy ass sceptical canuck with too much free time on his hands, I would probably be hankering for some american blood right now. I wonder what you would do if the situation was reversed, if you were that Iraqi kid? Would you believe all the US gov. horse manure about "liberation" and "freedom"? Considering the US gov. track record in the Middle East, wouldn't you be quite sceptical? I also can understand why this hypothetical Iraqi kid would maybe listen to the ******** spouted by Muslim fundamentalists. I mean, in Nazi occupied France, communists formed a good chunk of the resistance, and they understandably got quite a lot of prestige out of it. You know how that goes: my enemy's enemies are my friends and all that. By the way, I'm not saying US occupation=Nazi occupation, by the way. At least not yet.

I guess that makes me a "terrorist sympathiser", right? Well, if that makes me a "terrorist sympathiser" in your eyes, so be it.

And the flyer asks a question. It says "should we support the Iraqi resistance?" Sounds like a debate to me. Personally, I wouldn't mind hearing what do they have to say about that. I'm betting it is a "yes we should", but I would like to hear their reasons. Then I would decide on what to think of them. I would probably disagree, but hey, I would at least have more than just a knee jerk reaction to guide me, eh?

 

[tofu]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi

Hey tofu, I answered your questions, why don't you trying answering mine?

A: because by the time I got back to this thread, it had scrolled by like 50 posts. What's the point in answering a post two pages back? Especially when...

B: It's obvious that you are a die-hard bush basher. You're one of those people who hatted him even before he was elected. I remember it clearly. It was the summer of 2000. Everybody in the world knew that the dot.com bubble was going to burst. When you had companies making millions on their IPOs and their business plan was to deliver individual candy bars to people, yeah everybody knew it was about to end. So presidential *candidate* bush says, "I don't think this sustainable" and omfg, you would think he had sodomized a puppy dog on live television. Everybody (on the left) went f*cking insane, saying that he was "talking down the economy." Of course, four years later, when the economy is actually doing pretty good considering we're coming off the worst terrorist attack in history, the democrat candidates talk down the economy like crazy. Not a peep from the media about that.

The point is, they, just like you, hated bush before the war. You guys don't need any kind of rational reason to hate him. So there's little point in arguing except of course to entertain myself.

And C: your "questions" are just rehashes of questions you already asked, and I already answered. "Explain to me why Bush didn't know in advance about hurricane Katrina. Explain it! Explain it if you can you filthy conservative." Your questions are based on a premise that I don't accept. So, I suppose I could go through them and give you the same answers that I gave the last time you asked these questions, but you'll just respond with more. "Why didn't bush tell us that a car bomb would go off today?? Why? Why does he keep tomorrow's news a secret? Why?? Can you explain that? Can you? Can you?"

Anyway, it's a Saturday night, so I'm going out to have some fun. Maybe tomorrow I'll feel like going through a post from three pages back and maybe tomorrow I'll feel like smacking you with the glaringly obvious answers. We'll see.

Does anyone have a link to support that statement about war games prior to the invasion. Not that I doubt you, I'd just like to read more about it.

 

[clk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want C

A: because by the time I got back to this thread, it had scrolled by like 50 posts. What's the point in answering a post two pages back? Especially when...

B: It's obvious that you are a die-hard bush basher. You're one of those people who hatted him even before he was elected. I remember it clearly. It was the summer of 2000. Everybody in the world knew that the dot.com bubble was going to burst. When you had companies making millions on their IPOs and their business plan was to deliver individual candy bars to people, yeah everybody knew it was about to end. So presidential *candidate* bush says, "I don't think this sustainable" and omfg, you would think he had sodomized a puppy dog on live television. Everybody (on the left) went f*cking insane, saying that he was "talking down the economy." Of course, four years later, when the economy is actually doing pretty good considering we're coming off the worst terrorist attack in history, the democrat candidates talk down the economy like crazy. Not a peep from the media about that.

The point is, they, just like you, hated bush before the war. You guys don't need any kind of rational reason to hate him. So there's little point in arguing except of course to entertain myself.

And C: your "questions" are just rehashes of questions you already asked, and I already answered. "Explain to me why Bush didn't know in advance about hurricane Katrina. Explain it! Explain it if you can you filthy conservative." Your questions are based on a premise that I don't accept. So, I suppose I could go through them and give you the same answers that I gave the last time you asked these questions, but you'll just respond with more. "Why didn't bush tell us that a car bomb would go off today?? Why? Why does he keep tomorrow's news a secret? Why?? Can you explain that? Can you? Can you?"

Anyway, it's a Saturday night, so I'm going out to have some fun. Maybe tomorrow I'll feel like going through a post from three pages back and maybe tomorrow I'll feel like smacking you with the glaringly obvious answers. We'll see.

Does anyone have a link to support that statement about war games prior to the invasion. Not that I doubt you, I'd just like to read more about it.

Translation: you can't answer my questions. So instead you give me some irrelevant BS about the 2000 tech bubble and throw in a few ad hominems for good measure. Not a bad attempt at saving face, really. At least you don't just flee the thread like some of your fellow conservatives.

Since you're apparently too much of a coward to answer the questions, I'll leave them open to the other conservatives. Here they are again: Why did Bush lie about WMD? If Iraq is the center of the war on terrorism, then why did Bush fly onto an aircraft carrier and then, standing under a sign that said "Mission Accomplished", state that all major combat operations in Iraq were over? Why did Rumsfeld plan on having only 40k troops in Iraq by Fall 2003? Didn't he want to fight the terrorists in the battleground they created in Iraq?
But I doubt anyone will answer. They're too scared of the truth. It reminds me of another thread from a while back. Some conservatives claimed that Condi Rice was going to be the Republican nominee for President. I told them that they were smoking crack if they thought the Republican electorate was going to elect a black person to the Presidency. They called me all sorts of names, but then, when I researched the facts and found that there was not a single black Republican in the entire US Congress, they all fled the thread. I guess the truth hurts.

 

[Manny]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You wa

Why did Bush lie about WMD?

He didn't. He erred. His CIA director, a man of such high integrity that he was trusted with the CIA under both a Democrat and a Republican, told him it was a "slam dunk."

If Iraq is the center of the war on terrorism, then why did Bush fly onto an aircraft carrier and then, standing under a sign that said "Mission Accomplished", state that all major combat operations in Iraq were over? Why did Rumsfeld plan on having only 40k troops in Iraq by Fall 2003?

Both the President and the Defense Secretary underestimated the number of people who are terrorists. Basically, they made the error of believing themselves when they spit out the party line about terrorists being a "tiny minority of extremists" when in fact terrorists and would-be terrorists are much more numerous than conservatives admit. Simple, dumb math error -- a "tiny minority" of a billion people is still a lot of people.

Didn't he want to fight the terrorists in the battleground they created in Iraq?

Indeed they did. And do. That's a big part of why we're still there. The errant estimate of the actual number of terrorists does not reduce the need to capture or kill them; indeed it increases the urgency.

But I doubt anyone will answer.

In Cindy Sheehan's own words, she is a terrorist supporter. What weight am I supposed to assign to the arguments of a terrorist supporter? What am I supposed to think about an alleged "anti-war" movement which so eagerly rallies around a terrorist supporter.

 

[Orwell]

Aw man, come on, who are you kidding? You would be dismissive of the arguments of Jesus H. Christ himself if he happened to be anti-Dubya!