LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

BOMBSHELL, but really we knew this, didnt we?

BEIL--I think the coalition formed for a lot of reasons.

BB--I don't have the energy for you today.

Sean--hold the line.

Sorry guys. Sleep deprived and no energy today.
 
Peregrinator said:
BEIL--I think the coalition formed for a lot of reasons.

BB--I don't have the energy for you today.

Sean--hold the line.

Sorry guys. Sleep deprived and no energy today.
Click to expand...

Feel free to comment later.
 
Peregrinator said:
http://poetry.rotten.com/jenin/
Click to expand...
I note to you the famous comment of SHerlock Holmes and the LACK of a barking dog

Yeah, I saw the pictures, so what? War is hell whats new? People die!


I saw NOT ONE PIC of the 13 Israeli reservists that were LURED into a booby trapped building by a YOUNG BOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think they shoulda KNOWN and BLOWN the BUILDING

rather they HEARD the boy say there were injured women and kids there that needed help

when the soldiers got there, the building was BLOWN UP!
 
Right from the Beginning



Right invasion, wrong explanation.



The best moment of political theater at the president's news conference this week came when that thespian carbuncle of bile, Helen Thomas, hung a question mark at the end of a diatribe. The "dean" of the White House press corps all but called President Bush a lying warmonger who invaded Iraq for no legitimate reason.




Thomas lost the exchange, but the sad truth is that her side has won the larger argument. Ever since the controversy over the "16 words" in Bush's 2003 State of the Union address — in which the president alleged that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa — the administration has been gun-shy about defending its original decision to invade. That's understandable, given the consequences of that episode: Not only did it make the White House seem inept, it made former U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson and his very important hair a permanent fixture of the media firmament.

It is now simply taken as a given inside this White House that having an argument about why we invaded Iraq is a political loser. So the president prefers to talk democracy, not WMDs.

This might explain why the administration has been so blasé about declassifying about 50,000 boxes of captured Iraqi documents. We don't know what's in many of these boxes. But what has been released so far has been, at minimum, tantalizing, pointing to and illuminating ties between Hussein's regime and al Qaeda as well as other terrorist organizations, including Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines.

There are no smoking guns so far. And we probably won't find an Iraqi equivalent of the Zimmerman telegram — which exposed Germany's hostile intent before World War I — languishing in some government warehouse, like the Ark of the Covenant at the end of the first "Indiana Jones" movie.

But what these documents — as well as other after-action intelligence gathering — demonstrate is that given what he knew at the time, George W. Bush was right to invade Iraq. We now know that the CIA bureaucracy was simply wrong to insist that "secular" Iraq would never work with Islamist terrorist groups such as al Qaeda and Abu Sayyaf. We know that Iraq harbored and very likely supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the suspected bomb makers involved in the first World Trade Center attack in 1993.

According to the Pentagon's definitive postmortem on the invasion, some of which was leaked to the New York Times, even many Iraqi generals were stunned to discover that Hussein didn't have WMDs. Hussein practiced a strategy that one Republican Guard commander called "deterrence by doubt," in which he hoped to bluff the world into believing he had WMDs in order to deter Iran and keep his rep as an Arab strongman with serious mojo.

And that's the point Thomas et al don't want to understand. For reasons that still baffle me, the WMD threat — never the sole reason to invade Iraq — not only became the only argument, it became a thoroughly legalistic one, as if foreign policy has rules of evidence and procedural due process. After 9/11, that kind of foreign policy by lawyers looked ridiculous, and rightly so.

The fact that Hussein turned out to be bluffing about WMDs isn't a mark against Bush's decision. If you're a cop and a man pulls out a gun and points it at you, you're within your rights to shoot him, particularly if the man in question is a known criminal who's shot people before. If it turns out afterward that the gun wasn't loaded, that's not the cop's fault.

Hussein had a 30-year track record of pursuing WMDs. He dealt with Islamic terrorists. The sanctions regime fell apart thanks to Iraqi bribery and 30 years of spineless U.N. accommodation.

In the 1990s, Hussein tried to kill a former U.S. president and tried to shoot down British and American planes enforcing the "no-fly" zone. The Clinton administration — not the George W. Bush administration — established "regime change" as our policy toward Iraq. In the years that followed, the Iraqi regime openly celebrated the 9/11 attack. And when we tried to get Hussein to come clean about a weapons program we (and his own generals!) had every reason to believe existed, he played games. After 9/11, calling that bluff wasn't a "choice," it was an obligation.

One reason Bush is down in the polls is that he's giving the impression that he's trying to change the subject from "our mistaken invasion" to "building democracy in Iraq." Building democracy in Iraq is vital — and entirely consistent with the highest aspirations of liberal foreign policy. But he would serve himself and the county better if he simply explained that he's been right all along. Swatting Helen Thomas is a start, but it will take a lot more.
 
Well, it seems SOMEONE is LISTENING!


Well, well, well. It looks like the Iraq intel files may be starting to change perceptions. 9/11 Commission Bob Kerrey, for one, is certainly singing a different tune according to today’s NYSun:

The new documents suggest that the 9/11 commission's final conclusion in 2004, that there were no "operational" ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, may need to be reexamined in light of the recently captured documents.
While the commission detailed some contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990s, in Sudan and Afghanistan, the newly declassified Iraqi documents provide more detail than the commission disclosed in its final conclusions. For example, the fact that Saddam broadcast the sermons of al-Ouda at bin Laden's request was previously unknown, as was a conversation about possible collaboration on attacks against Saudi Arabia.

"This is a very significant set of facts," former 9/11 commissioner, Mr. Kerry said yesterday. "I personally and strongly believe you don't have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against [ACM note – I suspect he misspoke and meant “collaborating with”] Osama bin Laden on the September 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm. This presents facts should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on September 11. It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States."

Mr. Kerry also answered affirmatively when asked whether or not the release of more of the documents captured in Iraq could possibly shed further light on Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda. The former senator was one of the staunchest supporters of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which made the policy of regime change U.S. law.
 
BlueEyesInLevis said:
Its no big secret that the left is becoming virulently anti-Israel. Even at times bordering into out and out anti-semitism. But what they dont do is offer Isreal any real solution short of turning their country over to the Palestinians.

There is a common thread here and dismiss it all you wish, but its a fact. The left has a long and proud heritage of opposing anything that is supported by the US. The enthusiasm of this opposition varies with administrations, but as time goes on it become more and more profound everyday.
Click to expand...

Utter rubbish. Post some links of this "Virulent anti-Israeli" attitude or "out and out anti-semitism."
 
zipman said:
Utter rubbish. Post some links of this "Virulent anti-Israeli" attitude or "out and out anti-semitism."
Click to expand...

Holy crap...have you visited Indymedia lately?

The new face of anti-semitism

It's not John Birchers wearing the keffiyehs and shouting down Jewish speakers on campuses, Zip.
 
phrodeau said:
There is no difference between an anti-semite and an anti-Zionist in your world, is there?
Click to expand...
It's the argument that has been used against any critic of Israel for nearly 40 years now.
 
when Jews get BLOWN up

and Israel reacts

and Israel gets BLAMED

what else is it?
 
See Durbin

The WORLD held a HATE ISRAEL fest

withing weeks 9/11

cause and effect?

warath of G-D?

Hell yes!

If you were HERE, I COULD PROVE IT TO YOU

that even YOU a whacked LOON would see it black and white!

requires visual cues!

;)
 
busybody said:
See Durbin

The WORLD held a HATE ISRAEL fest

withing weeks 9/11

cause and effect?

warath of G-D?

Hell yes!

If you were HERE, I COULD PROVE IT TO YOU

that even YOU a whacked LOON would see it black and white!

requires visual cues!

;)
Click to expand...

Um, that particular syllogism would require something pretty impressive. You'd have to convince me of God's existence first, then demonstrate causality.

What does "see Durbin" mean?
 
phrodeau said:
There is no difference between an anti-semite and an anti-Zionist in your world, is there?
Click to expand...

The latter is little more than a stalking horse for the former in about 95% of the cases I've seen, IMHO.
 
Gringao said:
The latter is little more than a stalking horse for the former in about 95% of the cases I've seen, IMHO.
Click to expand...

It would be an interesting exercise to try to create an az argument without any as elements, just as a sort of logic experiment.
 
Peregrinator said:
So, let me see if I understand you: In Durban a lot of other countries said they didn't like Israel, so God helped them attack us?
Click to expand...
Thats NONSENSE

My point was that the so called anti Israel stance is nothing more then a ANTI JEW stance

Lets discuss matters, shall we?

First off, you dont understand as you dont have the filter of historic and personal events as do I. As some blacks say, You wont understand, ITS A BLACK THING!


On this very page Jenin was brought up

Lets see..............Jenin. What happened?

In reality, what happened was Israel attacked a terrorist HOTBED

AFTER several MAJOR terror attacks in Israel. Is that wrong? I dont think so.

Almost immediatly the Arabs screamed MASSACRE, over 500 dead! The world of course BOUGHT IT.

The media talked of MASS KILLINGS AND MASS graves, no mention of WHU Israel was there and no mention Israel denied it!

When the truth came out, (not that I trust the UN)even the UN verified that 50 were killed of whom 38 were "fighters". The myth of Jenin however lives on.

Does the world REALLY care about dead Arabs, or is it I HATE JEWS and ISRAEL and I will believe ANYTHING BAD ABOUT EM?

I submit that the latter is true, because if its the death of INNOCENTS they care about, we would have an upheavel about DARFUR!

We would have upheavels about DEAD JEWS in Israeli schools, stores, weddings and discos when THEY are blown up.

But we do hear about dead Arabs when killed by Jews................funny, not much of an outcry when Mooselimbs kill em, and they DO KILL more of em then do Jews!


So what do we learn from Jenin?

At least TWO things

1) Desoite the world KNOWING the Arabs have a HISTORY of lying and embellisihng, they bought the fiction from them even before the shooting stopped. As long as there can be Jews painted as evil, its assumed fact. Long after the fiction is exposed, the myth lives on!

and

2) The humanity of the IDF. As I mentioned earlier about the deaths of 13 Israeli reservists. The Arabs KNOW that when they NEED help, the IDF will help them. Thats why they sent a YOUNG BOY to run to the IDF patrol. KNOWING HE WOULDNT BE SHOT, IF AN ISRAELI BOY WOULD RUN TO AN ARAB PATROL WHAT WOULD HAPPEN? That young biy said there were wounded women and children in a house, the Jews KNOWING better, succumed to thier humanity and followed the boy into the house and were blown up.

Not much in the press about this!


You dont believe in G-D and thats why you dont understand how the world works. If you did, you would KNOW that G-D clearly says in the Bible he will BLESS those that Bless the stock of Abraham and curse those that curse the stock of Abraham

In the Holocaust, many great Rabbis were killed, the question is why would G-D kill the good? Becuase they didnt do anything to stop the bad!!!!!!!!!!! I dont like the answer, but it is one

It is said that history shows that anti semitism is the canary in the coal mine. When Darfur happened, and it was just the culmination of may years of hatred of Jews/Israel, G-Ds cup ran over.

The terrorist attack was a direct result of the US condemning Israel for BLOWING up BUILDINGS in response to DEAD JEWS. I warned Powell via emails thruout 2001 to be aware of his words becuase his words will hurt the US. I warned him to take direct action in Darfur, as the LEADER of the WORLD it was up to the US to correct evil. He did walk out of Darfur, but it was NOT enough. I also point to,DIRECT EVIDENCE IN THE BIBLE that fortold the attacks on the US. He was and remains DUMB!

You dont understand, Its a G-d Thing! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Counselor706
'We are on the cusp of the biggest mass hostage crisis this country has ever seen'
Replies
10
Views
638
pecksniff
P
TiredFingers
"The end of civilization as we knew it" (open)
Replies
2
Views
1K
ManInTheLoft
M
Alice2015
"Not with a bang but a whimper" (closed)
Replies
9
Views
1K
The_gladiator
The_gladiator
I
Breaking: G W Bush Administration Scandal
Replies
5
Views
285
SigShooter
S
StageMomCarolAnn
Diary Of A Stage Mom (OPEN)
Replies
0
Views
2K
StageMomCarolAnn
StageMomCarolAnn
Back
Top