sweetnpetite
Intellectual snob
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 9,135
is this thread dead?
or just on vacation?
or just on vacation?
"willfully ignorant"
- Thread starter shereads
- Start date
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Pure said:
Pure, thank you for having the energy I don't have anymore, to come forward and refute some of this self-worshipping I'm-More-American-Than-You crap. I'm exhausted and discouraged and constantly amazed that some of my fellow citizens seem to think you can't love the United States without blinding yourself to its flaws. Anybody who chooses to think we're in Iraq for benevolent reasons - or to fight terrorism, for that matter - is going to think that no matter what.
How many adminsitration insiders have to come forward with essentially the same unfortunate truths told from different perspectives, before conservatives will hold Bush/Cheney accountable? This administration has dragged the world into a war based on lies. People are dead because of their lies, and more will die before anyone can determine a way out of this mess. The war on terrorism has been weakened, not strengthened, by their cynical use of 9/ll as an excuse to throw all of our resources behind their own, self-serving agenda. If this had happened under a Democratic administration, these "patriots" would be building a scaffold on the Mall and screaming treason. As it is, they chant the "see no evil/hear no evil" mantra that leaves their consciences clean, and negates the fact that their votes for Bush/Cheney have led the world to the brink of disaster.
I guess they do believe that, Pure. There's a saying, "We get the government we deserve." Unfortunately, you and I get the government that Bush's blind faithful deserve.
Sweetnpetite, the thread is apparently alive. But it's brain dead.
The same uninformed, self-serving comments from the extreme right have been refuted a dozen times by half a dozen or more of the brightest people in this forum, with painstakingly researched facts and timelines, as if the truth mattered. Yet the same nationalist dogma gets dredged up again and again, by people who think they're posting something enlightening and original. How sad that this time it's disguised as a quote from Robin Williams, a brilliant and literate entertainer whose views are pretty much the opposite of those that are posted here in his name. You'd think that the lie would be obvious to anyone who appreciates Williams' intelligent wit; but lies seem to work better than the truth for this administration and its diehard fans.
I don't have the heart for this anymore. I've been in "you can't be serious" mode, ever since the people who spent 8 years berating Bill Clinton for dodging the draft decided that GWB's and Cheney's and Rumsfeld's rich-boy version of draft-dodging didn't merit any scrutiny. Like the lies behind the Iraq war and the fumbled response to 9/ll, conservatives are suddenly in favor of leaving the past in the past so that America can "move ahead."
The name of the thread is certainly apt.
S
Last edited:
cloudy
Alabama Slammer
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Posts
- 37,997
I give up.
I am not a "blind", die-hard, american-is-always-right type, believe it or not, but to be fair, I have stated just that several times in this same thread. Most seem to read what they want to read and ignore the rest.
I always thought that having a different opinion, whether those around you thought you were right or not, at least exhibits the ability to think for yourself.
Apparently, I was wrong, and to be honest, I'm tired of being bashed for using my brain, and thinking for myself, whether you agree with my opinion or not. At least I respect your right to yours.
(and just an FYI, I think ALL politicians are basically corrupt.....)
I am not a "blind", die-hard, american-is-always-right type, believe it or not, but to be fair, I have stated just that several times in this same thread. Most seem to read what they want to read and ignore the rest.
I always thought that having a different opinion, whether those around you thought you were right or not, at least exhibits the ability to think for yourself.
Apparently, I was wrong, and to be honest, I'm tired of being bashed for using my brain, and thinking for myself, whether you agree with my opinion or not. At least I respect your right to yours.
(and just an FYI, I think ALL politicians are basically corrupt.....)
Last edited:
smartnsassy
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2003
- Posts
- 175
seaknight said:
From The Federalist:
Winston Churchill said famously, "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." That was 1945. Today, lies are capable of circling the globe at the speed of light -- especially when a Leftmedia outlet like CBS's "60 Minutes" hosts "The Dick Clarke Show."
Richard Clarke, a leftover from the Clinton regime, seems to have confused George W. Bush for William J. Clinton. Errantly, Clarke claims President Bush ignored the al-Qa'ida threat and implies culpability for the attack on our countrymen 11 September 2001, eight months after Mr. Bush took office. That attack, you'll recall, was orchestrated by Osama bin Laden, the Islamist terrorist whom Bill Clinton ignored for eight years.
Why is Clarke stepping forward now? Politics and publicity.
http://www.federalist.com/current/
smartnsassy
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2003
- Posts
- 175
Could Bush have Prevented 9/11?
George Bush's military record as Commander-in-Chief is far more impressive than anything John Kerry has been able to conjure up. Thus, Kerry and company are determined to undermine President Bush's credibility as CiC by accusing him of dereliction of duty with regard to 9/11 and the war against Jihadi terrorists. To that end, a few weeks back, Kerry's operatives rallied a small group of family members of 9/11 victims against the Bush administration in a shameless exploitation of 3,000 dead Americans. And now they have enlisted Clarke to further erode the perception of the President's CiC performance.
As for Clarke's accusation that President Bush "ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11," it doesn't hold up to even the most fundamental scrutiny.
Contrary to Clarke's "recollection," long before 9/11 President Bush told his National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice that he was "tired of swatting flies," as had been the policy of the Clinton Administration. Instead, the U.S. would need to take the fight to al-Qa'ida. After all, under Clinton's watch, al-Qa'ida operatives had already bombed the World Trade Center, plotted to bomb simultaneously a dozen U.S. trans-Pacific flights, successfully bombed U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, attempted to bomb Los Angeles International Airport, and bombed the USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen. Did we mention the bombing of Khobar Towers?
In effect, Osama bin Laden and his al-Qa'ida terrorist network had operated with impunity since 1993.
To support President Bush's directive, spending for covert action against al-Qa'ida was increased 400%, while the administration's National Security Council deputies began to develop an operations plan to destroy al-Qa'ida. During that time, the Counterterrorism Security Group, the government's interagency counterterrorism crisis-management forum chaired by Dick Clarke, met on a near-daily basis prior to 9/11 out of concern for a potential al-Qa'ida attack. The new plan, a complete departure from the previous administration's policy of appeasement, was on the President's desk by 4 September 2001. Tragically, this wasn't soon enough to prevent the actions of al-Qa'ida one week later -- actions that were planned two years before President Bush took office.
Clarke, testifying before the commission investigating intelligence failures prior to 9/11, should have spent less time peddling books and more time preparing his story. Indeed, when asked by former Sen. Slade Gorton if there was "the remotest chance" the events of 9/11 could have been avoided if the Bush administration had adopted ALL of Clarke's recommendations for dealing with al-Qa'ida, Clarke answered, "No."
***
"For us, today, the hearings and frantic finger-pointing about September 11 are as silly and pointless as they are inevitable. The emergence of Islamist terrorism has been a good half century in the making -- from the theoretical writings by Egyptian intellectuals at the middle of the last century to September 11 and beyond. The clash between our civilization and that force was probably inevitable. If the events of September 11 had failed for any reason, there would have been another day and another disaster." --Tony Blankley
http://www.federalist.com/current/
George Bush's military record as Commander-in-Chief is far more impressive than anything John Kerry has been able to conjure up. Thus, Kerry and company are determined to undermine President Bush's credibility as CiC by accusing him of dereliction of duty with regard to 9/11 and the war against Jihadi terrorists. To that end, a few weeks back, Kerry's operatives rallied a small group of family members of 9/11 victims against the Bush administration in a shameless exploitation of 3,000 dead Americans. And now they have enlisted Clarke to further erode the perception of the President's CiC performance.
As for Clarke's accusation that President Bush "ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11," it doesn't hold up to even the most fundamental scrutiny.
Contrary to Clarke's "recollection," long before 9/11 President Bush told his National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice that he was "tired of swatting flies," as had been the policy of the Clinton Administration. Instead, the U.S. would need to take the fight to al-Qa'ida. After all, under Clinton's watch, al-Qa'ida operatives had already bombed the World Trade Center, plotted to bomb simultaneously a dozen U.S. trans-Pacific flights, successfully bombed U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, attempted to bomb Los Angeles International Airport, and bombed the USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen. Did we mention the bombing of Khobar Towers?
In effect, Osama bin Laden and his al-Qa'ida terrorist network had operated with impunity since 1993.
To support President Bush's directive, spending for covert action against al-Qa'ida was increased 400%, while the administration's National Security Council deputies began to develop an operations plan to destroy al-Qa'ida. During that time, the Counterterrorism Security Group, the government's interagency counterterrorism crisis-management forum chaired by Dick Clarke, met on a near-daily basis prior to 9/11 out of concern for a potential al-Qa'ida attack. The new plan, a complete departure from the previous administration's policy of appeasement, was on the President's desk by 4 September 2001. Tragically, this wasn't soon enough to prevent the actions of al-Qa'ida one week later -- actions that were planned two years before President Bush took office.
Clarke, testifying before the commission investigating intelligence failures prior to 9/11, should have spent less time peddling books and more time preparing his story. Indeed, when asked by former Sen. Slade Gorton if there was "the remotest chance" the events of 9/11 could have been avoided if the Bush administration had adopted ALL of Clarke's recommendations for dealing with al-Qa'ida, Clarke answered, "No."
***
"For us, today, the hearings and frantic finger-pointing about September 11 are as silly and pointless as they are inevitable. The emergence of Islamist terrorism has been a good half century in the making -- from the theoretical writings by Egyptian intellectuals at the middle of the last century to September 11 and beyond. The clash between our civilization and that force was probably inevitable. If the events of September 11 had failed for any reason, there would have been another day and another disaster." --Tony Blankley
http://www.federalist.com/current/
Last edited:
smartnsassy
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2003
- Posts
- 175
media power
Additionally, Clarke's big adventure into the realm of Clinton-sized prevarication was not solely a politically-motivated assault on the President's integrity, but timed to give maximum exposure by the Leftmedia to his new book, which is little more than a Leftist diatribe against the Bush doctrine of preemption. To that end, it is worth noting that the parent company of CBS (Clarke's principle promoter) is Viacom -- which also happens to be the parent company of Simon & Schuster, the publisher of Clarke's dubious new book, "Against All Enemies." (Recall that in January, CBS and Viacom orchestrated the same "60 Minutes" book promotion for another Bush-bashing tome -- that of fired former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill.)
http://www.federalist.com/current/
Additionally, Clarke's big adventure into the realm of Clinton-sized prevarication was not solely a politically-motivated assault on the President's integrity, but timed to give maximum exposure by the Leftmedia to his new book, which is little more than a Leftist diatribe against the Bush doctrine of preemption. To that end, it is worth noting that the parent company of CBS (Clarke's principle promoter) is Viacom -- which also happens to be the parent company of Simon & Schuster, the publisher of Clarke's dubious new book, "Against All Enemies." (Recall that in January, CBS and Viacom orchestrated the same "60 Minutes" book promotion for another Bush-bashing tome -- that of fired former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill.)
http://www.federalist.com/current/
smartnsassy
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2003
- Posts
- 175
In Closing-
On the Warfront with Jihadistan...
While John Kerry and his band of malcontents continued to undermine U.S. resolve in the war against Jihadistan ("aiding and abetting the enemy," it's called), four American civilians and seven American military personnel were murdered by al-Qa'ida wannabes in the Sunni Triangle around Baghdad. "The insurgents in Fallujah are testing us," says USMC Captain Chris Logan. "They're testing our resolve. But it's not like we're going to leave."
Despite these attacks, there was additional evidence that the U.S. presence in Iraq is having the desired effect on Iran and Syria. Syria has asked U.S. ally Australia for help in repairing its relations with the U.S. Australia, you'll recall, helped "negotiate the peace" between the U.S. and Libya earlier this year. Seems that Syria's Baathists are running scared....
From the Department of military readiness...
All those Lefties suggesting the U.S. has a "hollow military" will be sad to learn this week that the five Army divisions that have units deployed in the Middle East for the past 12 months have met virtually every re-enlistment goal. Retention targets for enlisted soldiers -- the 416,000 privates, corporals and sergeants of the Army's 490,000 active force, are standing firm. The all-volunteer force remains strong despite the stress of frequent deployments and hazardous duty. "This tends to rebut armchair critics who said the sky is falling and the vultures are circling and the Army is gong to lose all its troops," said Lt. Col. Franklin Childress. "This is not true. The soldiers get it." Hooah!
http://www.federalist.com/current/
Note: my post comes from one article which I broke up into several postings because I know it can be a pain and a major eyestrain to read one very long post. Also, different issues were adressed, so it made sence to me to break them up that way. I hope that it facilitates ease of reading. If anyone just finds the style irritating, I appologize. That was not my intent. I included the link at the bottom of each one, but it's the same link. I do not wish to imply that these are my original words.
On the Warfront with Jihadistan...
While John Kerry and his band of malcontents continued to undermine U.S. resolve in the war against Jihadistan ("aiding and abetting the enemy," it's called), four American civilians and seven American military personnel were murdered by al-Qa'ida wannabes in the Sunni Triangle around Baghdad. "The insurgents in Fallujah are testing us," says USMC Captain Chris Logan. "They're testing our resolve. But it's not like we're going to leave."
Despite these attacks, there was additional evidence that the U.S. presence in Iraq is having the desired effect on Iran and Syria. Syria has asked U.S. ally Australia for help in repairing its relations with the U.S. Australia, you'll recall, helped "negotiate the peace" between the U.S. and Libya earlier this year. Seems that Syria's Baathists are running scared....
From the Department of military readiness...
All those Lefties suggesting the U.S. has a "hollow military" will be sad to learn this week that the five Army divisions that have units deployed in the Middle East for the past 12 months have met virtually every re-enlistment goal. Retention targets for enlisted soldiers -- the 416,000 privates, corporals and sergeants of the Army's 490,000 active force, are standing firm. The all-volunteer force remains strong despite the stress of frequent deployments and hazardous duty. "This tends to rebut armchair critics who said the sky is falling and the vultures are circling and the Army is gong to lose all its troops," said Lt. Col. Franklin Childress. "This is not true. The soldiers get it." Hooah!
http://www.federalist.com/current/
Note: my post comes from one article which I broke up into several postings because I know it can be a pain and a major eyestrain to read one very long post. Also, different issues were adressed, so it made sence to me to break them up that way. I hope that it facilitates ease of reading. If anyone just finds the style irritating, I appologize. That was not my intent. I included the link at the bottom of each one, but it's the same link. I do not wish to imply that these are my original words.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
The proof of this president's dishonesty and incompetence is best expressed in his own words, on the record, and those of Cheney & company. So once again, for those who know a lie when they see one (you Heritage Foundation fans can look too, if you want) is all the proof any thinking person should need that GWB is less qualified to be Commander in Chief than my dog is qualified to be a cat.
-------------------
BEFORE:
We know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Dick Cheney
Meet The Press
3/16/2003
AFTER:
You may be reading too much. I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
DoD News Briefing
6/24/2003
BEFORE:
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
8/26/2002
The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
12/4/2002
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
12/2/2002
AFTER:
I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
7/9/2003
BEFORE:
We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.
George W. Bush
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.
George W. Bush
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
AFTER:
DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —
PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?
George W. Bush
12/16/2003
BEFORE:
It {Iraq} actively maintains all key aspects of its offensive BW [biological weapons] program.
John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002
AFTER:
A British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were -- facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons."
Unnamed British Weapons Inspector
The Observer
6/15/2003
BEFORE:
There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Addresses the U.N. Security Council
2/5/2003
AFTER:
The biological weapons labs that we believe strongly are biological weapons labs, we didn't find any biological weapons with those labs. But should that give us any comfort? Not at all.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Associated Press Interview
6/12/2003
BEFORE:
I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction. Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board member
Washington Post, p. A27
3/23/2003
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
ABC Interview
3/30/2003
AFTER:
We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Fox News Interview
5/4/2003
No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored.
Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
Meet the Press
6/8/2003
BEFORE:
But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
4/10/2003
AFTER:
I'm not sure that's the major reason we went to war.
Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
NBC, Today Show
6/26/2003
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on. Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
Vanity Fair interview
5/28/2003
BEFORE:
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
3/17/2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.
General Tommy Franks, Commander in Chief Central Command
Press Conference
3/22/2003
AFTER:
Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
Joseph C. Wilson IV,Ambassador
New York Times Editorial
7/6/2003
SIMULTANEOUSLY:
But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
George W. Bush
Interview with TVP Poland
5/30/2003
We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
5/30/2003
BUT AT LEAST:
One thing is for certain: Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America with weapons of mass destruction. George W. Bush, President
Speech at a weapons factory in Ohio
5/25/2003
--------------
Bush fans: Which part of "He lied" is unclear?
-------------------
BEFORE:
We know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Dick Cheney
Meet The Press
3/16/2003
AFTER:
You may be reading too much. I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
DoD News Briefing
6/24/2003
BEFORE:
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
8/26/2002
The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
12/4/2002
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
12/2/2002
AFTER:
I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
7/9/2003
BEFORE:
We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.
George W. Bush
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.
George W. Bush
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
AFTER:
DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —
PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?
George W. Bush
12/16/2003
BEFORE:
It {Iraq} actively maintains all key aspects of its offensive BW [biological weapons] program.
John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002
AFTER:
A British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were -- facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons."
Unnamed British Weapons Inspector
The Observer
6/15/2003
BEFORE:
There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Addresses the U.N. Security Council
2/5/2003
AFTER:
The biological weapons labs that we believe strongly are biological weapons labs, we didn't find any biological weapons with those labs. But should that give us any comfort? Not at all.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Associated Press Interview
6/12/2003
BEFORE:
I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction. Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board member
Washington Post, p. A27
3/23/2003
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
ABC Interview
3/30/2003
AFTER:
We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Fox News Interview
5/4/2003
No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored.
Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
Meet the Press
6/8/2003
BEFORE:
But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
4/10/2003
AFTER:
I'm not sure that's the major reason we went to war.
Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
NBC, Today Show
6/26/2003
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on. Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
Vanity Fair interview
5/28/2003
BEFORE:
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
3/17/2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.
General Tommy Franks, Commander in Chief Central Command
Press Conference
3/22/2003
AFTER:
Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
Joseph C. Wilson IV,Ambassador
New York Times Editorial
7/6/2003
SIMULTANEOUSLY:
But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
George W. Bush
Interview with TVP Poland
5/30/2003
We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
5/30/2003
BUT AT LEAST:
One thing is for certain: Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America with weapons of mass destruction. George W. Bush, President
Speech at a weapons factory in Ohio
5/25/2003
--------------
Bush fans: Which part of "He lied" is unclear?
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Smart 'n Sassy,
Your reproduction (of whomever's writing, those who call themselves 'federalist'-- a joke in itself) is a bit long to critique and expose, but certainly far too many politicians and military folks FAILED to appreciate the "Islamic Militant" threat in the 90s.
However, these 'federalists' don't bother to document any claims or provide references, so it's hardly worth engaging their less-than 'readers digest' material. {RD does attribute.}
I do like their blurb:
Don't even think about ending your week without arming yourself with The Federalist's comprehensive, conservative digest of the week's most important news, policy and opinion. Requested by more Americans than any other e-journal, The Federalist is a concise, highly acclaimed (see endorsements) digest of anecdotal rebuttal to contemporary political, social and media Leftists -- now delivered FREE by E-MAIL directly to your inbox Friday morning. Compiled each week by a national editorial panel, The Federalist's highly condensed format is an informative and entertaining survey and analysis a wide spectrum of reliable information from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations. Don't leave home without it!
I agree their survey is indeed 'entertaining.'
Your own heros did not exactly scream their lungs out, and the admin is so embarrassed by Condoleeza's speech that was to be delivered 9/11, that it's being suppressed. Apparently like her documented July speech, al qaeda was not mentioned.
Please cite some of the warnings issued by "right wing intellectuals" (excuse the oxymoron) in the 2-3 years before 9-11.
Please cite speeches by Republicans in the Congress demanding action (there was a Republican majority, which could, if informed have greatly embarrassed Clinton had he--hypothetically-- declined the active pursuit of terrorists.) What were your so called 'federalists' saying in the year before 9-11?
You--or those whose writings you copy-- also conveniently ignore that history existed before the 1990s, and that the Islamic militant groups as well as Khomeini, initially, were supported and funded by the US, under Reagan and his people, continuing under Bush Sr.
You are right that the 9-11 critique has a 'political' element; so does the Republican's use of the NYC 9-11 site, as backdrop of its upcoming convention.
You [quoting from the 'federalist'] say,
//George Bush's military record as Commander-in-Chief is far more impressive than anything John Kerry has been able to conjure up. //
I guess you're referring to the 'victory' in Iraq. Pretty impressive, though not as a strike against terrorism.
Likewise, 'your' contention that Bush has, unlike Clinton, taken the fight (effectively) to al Qaeda, is mostly incorrect. Islamic militants are now more numerous in Iraq, and at least as numerous elsewhere, as the recent Spanish news indicates. I'm referring to the the Tunisian 'cell' that's been around for some time. It's true that the Taliban are not in the 'central government' of Afghanistan, however that entity is pretty vaporous, and the Taliban are reconstituting in the outlands.
Lastly, your [reproduction of the 'federalist'] contention that there is no army personnel problem, and that re elistment is steady is demonstrably false.** Indeed there's reason to suppose some form of 'draft' will be needed-- timed after the election, of course. The presence of the "Blackwater" group, mercenaries making 500+ per day is evidence that there is a trained manpower problem.
J.
Cloudy, your endorsement of the Sassy reproductions hardly shows evidence that you, as you claim, are using your brain, and are not blindly following a party line.
I'm tired of being bashed for using my brain, and thinking for myself, whether you agree with my opinion or not.
You got off on the wrong foot, Mr. Independent, by posting an well known piece of falsely-attributed Internet Hoax, as an analysis of the US problems or prescription for solving them, even allowing for the tongue in cheek exaggeration.
Note that my comments above concede far more to 'your side' that you or 'sassy' have ever conceded.
**Out of dozens of citations about re enlistment problems, here's one:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/01-26-2004/draft.htm
Vol. 20, No. 2
January 26, 2004
Reviving the Draft
by William Norman Grigg
With roughly half of our Army committed to the Iraq occupation, and additional geopolitical challenges looming on the horizon, the return of conscription is a very real possibility.
‘‘Should the Draft Be Reinstated"? asked the headline of a December 21, 2003 Time magazine story. Many National Guardsmen and Army Reservists — men and women who believed they had signed limited contracts to serve as part-time soldiers — are discovering that, in a very real sense, the draft has already been quietly revived.
The December 29 Washington Post profiled two Guardsmen and a Reservist presently deployed to Iraq who had been slated for retirement last year. "On their Army paychecks, the expiration date of their military service is now listed sometime after 2030 — the payroll computer’s way of saying, ‘Who knows?’" observed the Post. The same is true of "thousands of soldiers forbidden to leave military service under the Army’s ‘stop-loss’ orders, intended to stanch the seepage of troops, through retirement and discharge, from a military stretched thin by its burgeoning overseas missions." Over the past two years, the Army has issued 11 stop-loss orders — roughly one every two months.
Although Congress ended the draft in 1973, it subsequently authorized stop-loss orders as a way of retaining personnel with combat experience and special skills. Despite the fact that enlistment in the military is voluntary, each branch of the service can, at the direction of the secretary of defense, prolong enlistments indefinitely,[...]
In fact, at least one branch of the military has come remarkably close to admitting that stop-loss orders are tantamount to "a draft per se." As it announced a stop-loss order last spring, the Air Force noted in an official news bulletin that "this action, while essential to meeting the service’s worldwide obligations, is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of voluntary service."
Over-stretched and Under-manned
[...]
Most Guardsmen and Reservists presently deployed to Iraq were initially told the mission would last six months, only to have their tour of duty extended to a year. Lt. Gen. Helmly predicts that in the future, foreign deployments of a year or more will "likely become the norm." This assumes, of course, that the Guard and Reserves will be able to attract and keep skilled personnel. But that is hardly a safe assumption, as even Helmly admits: "Retention is what I am most worried about."
A survey of troop morale published in mid-October by the Army newspaper Stars & Stripes disclosed that nearly half of the soldiers polled did not plan to reenlist. The morale crisis is particularly acute for Guardsmen and Reservists, who have borne much of the burden of occupying Iraq. Laments an Army Reserve officer from Milwaukee, "People are dropping out left and right."
Were it not for the stealth conscription of tens of thousands of volunteer servicemen through stop-loss orders, the Army would face a severe manpower shortage. But the Army has actually used the orders to expand its ranks without legal authority from Congress. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last November, General Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, revealed that by blocking the departure of roughly 40,000 soldiers (including 16,000 Guardsmen and Reservists) the Army now numbers 500,000 active-duty soldiers — exceeding the congressionally authorized ceiling by 20,000 men.
====
Veterans Rights Site
http://www.firebase.net/declaration.htm
FOREWORD
The Pentagon and Department of Defense, (DOD), have admitted there is a serious shortage of military enlistment. Last year the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force all fell short of their target numbers of new enlistments. Some in Congress are already "toying" with the possibility of reinstating the Draft. In an effort to boost enlistment, and head off the Draft, the DOD has lowered enlistment standards and offered money bonuses to entice our young to enlist.
Your reproduction (of whomever's writing, those who call themselves 'federalist'-- a joke in itself) is a bit long to critique and expose, but certainly far too many politicians and military folks FAILED to appreciate the "Islamic Militant" threat in the 90s.
However, these 'federalists' don't bother to document any claims or provide references, so it's hardly worth engaging their less-than 'readers digest' material. {RD does attribute.}
I do like their blurb:
Don't even think about ending your week without arming yourself with The Federalist's comprehensive, conservative digest of the week's most important news, policy and opinion. Requested by more Americans than any other e-journal, The Federalist is a concise, highly acclaimed (see endorsements) digest of anecdotal rebuttal to contemporary political, social and media Leftists -- now delivered FREE by E-MAIL directly to your inbox Friday morning. Compiled each week by a national editorial panel, The Federalist's highly condensed format is an informative and entertaining survey and analysis a wide spectrum of reliable information from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations. Don't leave home without it!
I agree their survey is indeed 'entertaining.'
Your own heros did not exactly scream their lungs out, and the admin is so embarrassed by Condoleeza's speech that was to be delivered 9/11, that it's being suppressed. Apparently like her documented July speech, al qaeda was not mentioned.
Please cite some of the warnings issued by "right wing intellectuals" (excuse the oxymoron) in the 2-3 years before 9-11.
Please cite speeches by Republicans in the Congress demanding action (there was a Republican majority, which could, if informed have greatly embarrassed Clinton had he--hypothetically-- declined the active pursuit of terrorists.) What were your so called 'federalists' saying in the year before 9-11?
You--or those whose writings you copy-- also conveniently ignore that history existed before the 1990s, and that the Islamic militant groups as well as Khomeini, initially, were supported and funded by the US, under Reagan and his people, continuing under Bush Sr.
You are right that the 9-11 critique has a 'political' element; so does the Republican's use of the NYC 9-11 site, as backdrop of its upcoming convention.
You [quoting from the 'federalist'] say,
//George Bush's military record as Commander-in-Chief is far more impressive than anything John Kerry has been able to conjure up. //
I guess you're referring to the 'victory' in Iraq. Pretty impressive, though not as a strike against terrorism.
Likewise, 'your' contention that Bush has, unlike Clinton, taken the fight (effectively) to al Qaeda, is mostly incorrect. Islamic militants are now more numerous in Iraq, and at least as numerous elsewhere, as the recent Spanish news indicates. I'm referring to the the Tunisian 'cell' that's been around for some time. It's true that the Taliban are not in the 'central government' of Afghanistan, however that entity is pretty vaporous, and the Taliban are reconstituting in the outlands.
Lastly, your [reproduction of the 'federalist'] contention that there is no army personnel problem, and that re elistment is steady is demonstrably false.** Indeed there's reason to suppose some form of 'draft' will be needed-- timed after the election, of course. The presence of the "Blackwater" group, mercenaries making 500+ per day is evidence that there is a trained manpower problem.
J.
Cloudy, your endorsement of the Sassy reproductions hardly shows evidence that you, as you claim, are using your brain, and are not blindly following a party line.
I'm tired of being bashed for using my brain, and thinking for myself, whether you agree with my opinion or not.
You got off on the wrong foot, Mr. Independent, by posting an well known piece of falsely-attributed Internet Hoax, as an analysis of the US problems or prescription for solving them, even allowing for the tongue in cheek exaggeration.
Note that my comments above concede far more to 'your side' that you or 'sassy' have ever conceded.
**Out of dozens of citations about re enlistment problems, here's one:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/01-26-2004/draft.htm
Vol. 20, No. 2
January 26, 2004
Reviving the Draft
by William Norman Grigg
With roughly half of our Army committed to the Iraq occupation, and additional geopolitical challenges looming on the horizon, the return of conscription is a very real possibility.
‘‘Should the Draft Be Reinstated"? asked the headline of a December 21, 2003 Time magazine story. Many National Guardsmen and Army Reservists — men and women who believed they had signed limited contracts to serve as part-time soldiers — are discovering that, in a very real sense, the draft has already been quietly revived.
The December 29 Washington Post profiled two Guardsmen and a Reservist presently deployed to Iraq who had been slated for retirement last year. "On their Army paychecks, the expiration date of their military service is now listed sometime after 2030 — the payroll computer’s way of saying, ‘Who knows?’" observed the Post. The same is true of "thousands of soldiers forbidden to leave military service under the Army’s ‘stop-loss’ orders, intended to stanch the seepage of troops, through retirement and discharge, from a military stretched thin by its burgeoning overseas missions." Over the past two years, the Army has issued 11 stop-loss orders — roughly one every two months.
Although Congress ended the draft in 1973, it subsequently authorized stop-loss orders as a way of retaining personnel with combat experience and special skills. Despite the fact that enlistment in the military is voluntary, each branch of the service can, at the direction of the secretary of defense, prolong enlistments indefinitely,[...]
In fact, at least one branch of the military has come remarkably close to admitting that stop-loss orders are tantamount to "a draft per se." As it announced a stop-loss order last spring, the Air Force noted in an official news bulletin that "this action, while essential to meeting the service’s worldwide obligations, is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of voluntary service."
Over-stretched and Under-manned
[...]
Most Guardsmen and Reservists presently deployed to Iraq were initially told the mission would last six months, only to have their tour of duty extended to a year. Lt. Gen. Helmly predicts that in the future, foreign deployments of a year or more will "likely become the norm." This assumes, of course, that the Guard and Reserves will be able to attract and keep skilled personnel. But that is hardly a safe assumption, as even Helmly admits: "Retention is what I am most worried about."
A survey of troop morale published in mid-October by the Army newspaper Stars & Stripes disclosed that nearly half of the soldiers polled did not plan to reenlist. The morale crisis is particularly acute for Guardsmen and Reservists, who have borne much of the burden of occupying Iraq. Laments an Army Reserve officer from Milwaukee, "People are dropping out left and right."
Were it not for the stealth conscription of tens of thousands of volunteer servicemen through stop-loss orders, the Army would face a severe manpower shortage. But the Army has actually used the orders to expand its ranks without legal authority from Congress. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last November, General Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, revealed that by blocking the departure of roughly 40,000 soldiers (including 16,000 Guardsmen and Reservists) the Army now numbers 500,000 active-duty soldiers — exceeding the congressionally authorized ceiling by 20,000 men.
====
Veterans Rights Site
http://www.firebase.net/declaration.htm
FOREWORD
The Pentagon and Department of Defense, (DOD), have admitted there is a serious shortage of military enlistment. Last year the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force all fell short of their target numbers of new enlistments. Some in Congress are already "toying" with the possibility of reinstating the Draft. In an effort to boost enlistment, and head off the Draft, the DOD has lowered enlistment standards and offered money bonuses to entice our young to enlist.
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
The 'federalist' site, whose material is copied here by 'sassy', publishes undocumented 'digests' of material, and its contentions are not generally worth refuting, since the attributions and 'facts' are not documented.
Here is their blurb:
About The Federalist
National Advisory Committee, Staff and Associates
The Federalist's National Advisory Committee is a consortium of conservative men and women -- political analysts and policy experts who possess impeccable professional and academic credentials -- who have provided us with inspiration and encouragement since our inception. The Committee is comprised -- first and foremost -- of Constitutional constructionists, charged with advocating the timeless and enduring Judeo-Christian truths reflected in our American heritage and set forth in our nation's founding documents. (This is not to say that The Federalist advocates for a "Christian nation," but an adjunct to our mission is to advocate for a "nation of Christians.")
Likewise, The Federalist's Staff and Associates are Constitutional constructionists who also possess impeccable professional and academic credentials commensurate with the our mission to produce and distribute the highest quality e-journal on the Internet.
Statement of Allegiance as subscribed by The Federalist's National Advisory Committee, Staff and Associates: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, so help me God."
You will note that The Federalist's opinion and feature sections are published without attribution, consistent with our objective of humilitas and Ronald Reagan's counsel, "There is no limit to what a man can do...if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." Like The Federalist of 1787 from which we take our cue, each edition is published under the pseudonym "Publius," and all those associated with The Federalist are recognized only by their choice of pseudonyms.
In this age of "identity/personality" driven media, we have elected to let the ideas expressed in The Federalist stand on their own merit. {my bold, pure}After all, the timeless ideas in our pages don't necessarily originate with us and we make no claim to own them. Contrary to conventional wisdom about successful media models, we are now the most widely distributed e-journal on the Web, reaching hundreds-of-thousands of readers each week! We suppose that is good testament to the ideas handed to us by our Founders -- the lens through which we interpret current news, policy and opinion.
Their intellectual level can be judged by the descriptions of staff in terms of favorite founder, favorite books and favorite gun:
Federalist Staff and Associates
[name, occupation/position, education, favorite founder, three favorite books, and, just for fun, weapon of choice]
M. Morrison Alexander
Executive Editor and Publisher
BS; MSSc; MEd
Samuel Adams
Biography of John Adams, Biography of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, Founding Fathers and Brothers
HK MP-5 9mm
I should add, however, that they have some pretty impressive endorsements:
"The Federalist is the most informative and witty publication on the Internet. I read every issue!" --Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Syndicated Radio Host
"The Federalist is a refreshing antidote to the mainstream media establishment, and an invaluable resource for straight thinkers." --Charles Colson, Author
Here is their blurb:
About The Federalist
National Advisory Committee, Staff and Associates
The Federalist's National Advisory Committee is a consortium of conservative men and women -- political analysts and policy experts who possess impeccable professional and academic credentials -- who have provided us with inspiration and encouragement since our inception. The Committee is comprised -- first and foremost -- of Constitutional constructionists, charged with advocating the timeless and enduring Judeo-Christian truths reflected in our American heritage and set forth in our nation's founding documents. (This is not to say that The Federalist advocates for a "Christian nation," but an adjunct to our mission is to advocate for a "nation of Christians.")
Likewise, The Federalist's Staff and Associates are Constitutional constructionists who also possess impeccable professional and academic credentials commensurate with the our mission to produce and distribute the highest quality e-journal on the Internet.
Statement of Allegiance as subscribed by The Federalist's National Advisory Committee, Staff and Associates: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, so help me God."
You will note that The Federalist's opinion and feature sections are published without attribution, consistent with our objective of humilitas and Ronald Reagan's counsel, "There is no limit to what a man can do...if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." Like The Federalist of 1787 from which we take our cue, each edition is published under the pseudonym "Publius," and all those associated with The Federalist are recognized only by their choice of pseudonyms.
In this age of "identity/personality" driven media, we have elected to let the ideas expressed in The Federalist stand on their own merit. {my bold, pure}After all, the timeless ideas in our pages don't necessarily originate with us and we make no claim to own them. Contrary to conventional wisdom about successful media models, we are now the most widely distributed e-journal on the Web, reaching hundreds-of-thousands of readers each week! We suppose that is good testament to the ideas handed to us by our Founders -- the lens through which we interpret current news, policy and opinion.
Their intellectual level can be judged by the descriptions of staff in terms of favorite founder, favorite books and favorite gun:
Federalist Staff and Associates
[name, occupation/position, education, favorite founder, three favorite books, and, just for fun, weapon of choice]
M. Morrison Alexander
Executive Editor and Publisher
BS; MSSc; MEd
Samuel Adams
Biography of John Adams, Biography of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, Founding Fathers and Brothers
HK MP-5 9mm
I should add, however, that they have some pretty impressive endorsements:
"The Federalist is the most informative and witty publication on the Internet. I read every issue!" --Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Syndicated Radio Host
"The Federalist is a refreshing antidote to the mainstream media establishment, and an invaluable resource for straight thinkers." --Charles Colson, Author
Last edited:
rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,719
Boy, that looks like fun. Let's see what my 'Federalist' profile would look like.
Rob Graham
Janitor
High school dropout
Thomas Jefferson
The Doubter's Companion, Starship Troopers, The Art of War
Not sure, either katana, sai, kusari-gama or kyoketsu-shogi. If you have to kill someone, best to use bladed weapons so you can see the life flee from them and you carry the guilt for the rest of your life. Guns make killing too easy.
Jesus Christ, no wonder I'm such a bleeding heart liberal! No fancy initials in my name, joe job, ignorant, I like that pacifist fruitcake Jefferson, my favourite literature is unknown, SF and ancient, and I haven't even discovered gunpowder yet.
Oh, the shame of it.
And Shrub II is such a hero. He keeps showing up for photo ops dressed as a soldier. What a man!
When was the last time he saw somebody try to stuff their intestines back into their body after a mortar round went off too close? When did he ever get sprayed with blood when a machine gun bullet took his buddy's arm off? Has he ever watched someone dance and scream as napalm or white phosphorous reduces them to a crisp? I could go on, but I imagine some of the people here would like to eat sometime today.
As far as I'm concerned, Dubya is a remf (Rear Echelon MotherFucker).
Rob Graham
Janitor
High school dropout
Thomas Jefferson
The Doubter's Companion, Starship Troopers, The Art of War
Not sure, either katana, sai, kusari-gama or kyoketsu-shogi. If you have to kill someone, best to use bladed weapons so you can see the life flee from them and you carry the guilt for the rest of your life. Guns make killing too easy.
Jesus Christ, no wonder I'm such a bleeding heart liberal! No fancy initials in my name, joe job, ignorant, I like that pacifist fruitcake Jefferson, my favourite literature is unknown, SF and ancient, and I haven't even discovered gunpowder yet.
Oh, the shame of it.
And Shrub II is such a hero. He keeps showing up for photo ops dressed as a soldier. What a man!
When was the last time he saw somebody try to stuff their intestines back into their body after a mortar round went off too close? When did he ever get sprayed with blood when a machine gun bullet took his buddy's arm off? Has he ever watched someone dance and scream as napalm or white phosphorous reduces them to a crisp? I could go on, but I imagine some of the people here would like to eat sometime today.
As far as I'm concerned, Dubya is a remf (Rear Echelon MotherFucker).
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Born that way?
Androgynous and Hermaphroditic are words used to describe living entitites that contain both male and female reproductive organs and characteristics.
Little evidence exists to support that modern homosexuals and lesbians are 'born' that way, the 'objective' jury is still out on the matter.
But after long years of observation and thought, I have concluded that the strong possibilty exists wherein many/most modern Liberals....are born that way...
In other words, an inborn tendency to control, regulate, manage and manipulate any social grouping of peoples. Call them what you may...Commune oriented, hive oriented, group or social oriented; the fundamental, apparently innate, modus operandi is that man is so evil by nature that he must be controlled and told what to do and how to live.
Those who identify with Communism, Socialisism, Fascism, Monarchism, Liberalism, all in varying shades of gray, all agree that government must have the right and the power to contol, dictate and enforce the social and economic structure of society.
As 40 percent always vote Left and 40 percent always vote Right and the remaining 20 percent flip a coin, I guess that is called Democracy...a messy system at best.
For my view, when 90 percent of Educators and 90 percent of Labor Unions vote left in every election; when 90 percent of African Americans, and Hispanic Americans always vote left in every election....I am at a loss to understand how those who advocate human liberty...freedom ever to be successful.
For the few during this forum who have stood up for traditional American values, vis-a-vie the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of rights, the concept of the innate 'right' to ife, liberty and pursuit, a word of good cheer. For the first time I have seen, you have backed the entrenched Liberals into a corner, well done!
Usually the MO of name calling, 'Right wing intellectuals' "Oxymoron" and the coordination of attacks or total absence of response to anyone who dares challenge the Socialist Bias of the 'regulars'...usually that tends to leave one to sigh, and find other means of expression....
Good show! regards...amicus veritas....
Androgynous and Hermaphroditic are words used to describe living entitites that contain both male and female reproductive organs and characteristics.
Little evidence exists to support that modern homosexuals and lesbians are 'born' that way, the 'objective' jury is still out on the matter.
But after long years of observation and thought, I have concluded that the strong possibilty exists wherein many/most modern Liberals....are born that way...
In other words, an inborn tendency to control, regulate, manage and manipulate any social grouping of peoples. Call them what you may...Commune oriented, hive oriented, group or social oriented; the fundamental, apparently innate, modus operandi is that man is so evil by nature that he must be controlled and told what to do and how to live.
Those who identify with Communism, Socialisism, Fascism, Monarchism, Liberalism, all in varying shades of gray, all agree that government must have the right and the power to contol, dictate and enforce the social and economic structure of society.
As 40 percent always vote Left and 40 percent always vote Right and the remaining 20 percent flip a coin, I guess that is called Democracy...a messy system at best.
For my view, when 90 percent of Educators and 90 percent of Labor Unions vote left in every election; when 90 percent of African Americans, and Hispanic Americans always vote left in every election....I am at a loss to understand how those who advocate human liberty...freedom ever to be successful.
For the few during this forum who have stood up for traditional American values, vis-a-vie the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of rights, the concept of the innate 'right' to ife, liberty and pursuit, a word of good cheer. For the first time I have seen, you have backed the entrenched Liberals into a corner, well done!
Usually the MO of name calling, 'Right wing intellectuals' "Oxymoron" and the coordination of attacks or total absence of response to anyone who dares challenge the Socialist Bias of the 'regulars'...usually that tends to leave one to sigh, and find other means of expression....
Good show! regards...amicus veritas....
cloudy
Alabama Slammer
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Posts
- 37,997
For Amicus.....
Thank you so much for a very nice post. I had begun to think that the "hive mentality" was literally taking over.
For Pure and others: I respect your right to your own opinion, as you apparently DON'T respect mine. I won't resort to name-calling, as you seem to have done. Your opinion is just that, yours, and while I don't agree with you, I certainly won't sling mud at you for having your own thoughts.
As far as George Bush goes.....yes, I DID vote for him, but I will qualify that by saying that I considered it the lesser of two evils. Do you honestly think that Gore could have done any better???? C'mon, people, I lived in Tennessee for quite a while, and when the people from his home state consider him something of a joke it should tell you something.
And, no, I am not a "Mr. Independent".....that's "Ms." to you, thank you. What made you think I was male? The same stereotypical thinking (that you accuse me of) that made you think I was a right-wing, white, Christian? Wrong on all four counts, my friend.
I "got off on the wrong foot"? Please, you guys/girls get a sense of humor! It was posted as a joke, for goodness sakes.....all I said was it made some good points, not that I thought it was something that should be ratified into law!
Cloudy
(non-white, non-christian, neither left-nor-right wing, and most definitely NOT male - and actually beginning to find all this vehemence amusing)
Thank you so much for a very nice post. I had begun to think that the "hive mentality" was literally taking over.
For Pure and others: I respect your right to your own opinion, as you apparently DON'T respect mine. I won't resort to name-calling, as you seem to have done. Your opinion is just that, yours, and while I don't agree with you, I certainly won't sling mud at you for having your own thoughts.
As far as George Bush goes.....yes, I DID vote for him, but I will qualify that by saying that I considered it the lesser of two evils. Do you honestly think that Gore could have done any better???? C'mon, people, I lived in Tennessee for quite a while, and when the people from his home state consider him something of a joke it should tell you something.
And, no, I am not a "Mr. Independent".....that's "Ms." to you, thank you. What made you think I was male? The same stereotypical thinking (that you accuse me of) that made you think I was a right-wing, white, Christian? Wrong on all four counts, my friend.
I "got off on the wrong foot"? Please, you guys/girls get a sense of humor! It was posted as a joke, for goodness sakes.....all I said was it made some good points, not that I thought it was something that should be ratified into law!
Cloudy
(non-white, non-christian, neither left-nor-right wing, and most definitely NOT male - and actually beginning to find all this vehemence amusing)
Last edited:
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
Sher said:
How many adminsitration insiders have to come forward with essentially the same unfortunate truths told from different perspectives, before conservatives will hold Bush/Cheney accountable?
The simple answer is it dosen't matter how many rats dessert the ship. That is exactly how these people are viewed, as rats jumping ship when things get tough. Conservatives are not going to abandon Bush/Cheny. For the simple reason doing so means putting the Democrats back in the white house. After 8 years of Bill & Hillary they have the white house back and they are not about to vote themselves out.
If anything they will come together, close ranks and support Bush/Cheny to the utmost, just as Democrats did with Clinton.
It's simply politics. He may be an SOB, but by god he is OUR , SOB.
-Colly
How many adminsitration insiders have to come forward with essentially the same unfortunate truths told from different perspectives, before conservatives will hold Bush/Cheney accountable?
The simple answer is it dosen't matter how many rats dessert the ship. That is exactly how these people are viewed, as rats jumping ship when things get tough. Conservatives are not going to abandon Bush/Cheny. For the simple reason doing so means putting the Democrats back in the white house. After 8 years of Bill & Hillary they have the white house back and they are not about to vote themselves out.
If anything they will come together, close ranks and support Bush/Cheny to the utmost, just as Democrats did with Clinton.
It's simply politics. He may be an SOB, but by god he is OUR , SOB.
-Colly
rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,719
Colleen? I hold my SOBs to a higher standard of ethics and intelligence than Shrub II shows.
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
rgraham666 said:
Your SOB is more intelligent and ethical to you only because he is your SOB. You are not allowed to comment on the intellect or ethics of my SOB. At this point in time I don't even have an SOB. But trying to compare mine to yours is the equivlent of use each going out into the pasture, selecting out own personal favorite cow patty and then comparing them. No matter what glorified language we use, we are still both defending and glorifying turds.
-Colly
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Colly said,
we [liberals and 'conservatives']are still both defending and glorifying turds.
OK. I acknowledge the turdly elements in both conservatives and liberals. After all it was Kennedy and Johnson who got us into Vietnam. McNamara was not a Republican. Some liberals are arch foreign meddlers and 'black ops' persons.
What I object to, however is those people and sites (e.g., the 'federalist' site) that wrap their turds in the flag, post a copy of the constitution on top, and sing "When I'm held, all in his arms, Jesus saves, Jesus saves"-- as a way of advertising and promoting their cause. And leave me abandoned with my lowly 'pie' and the "666" on top.
we [liberals and 'conservatives']are still both defending and glorifying turds.
OK. I acknowledge the turdly elements in both conservatives and liberals. After all it was Kennedy and Johnson who got us into Vietnam. McNamara was not a Republican. Some liberals are arch foreign meddlers and 'black ops' persons.
What I object to, however is those people and sites (e.g., the 'federalist' site) that wrap their turds in the flag, post a copy of the constitution on top, and sing "When I'm held, all in his arms, Jesus saves, Jesus saves"-- as a way of advertising and promoting their cause. And leave me abandoned with my lowly 'pie' and the "666" on top.
rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,719
That's true enough, Colleen. I'm sorry if I appeared too cross. My anger at Bush, more correctly, my anger at his attitude about this war came out too strongly. I apologise.
I find it rather amusing that the 'Federalists' claim to be in favour of freedom and against 'social control'.
As I recall, they initiated two of the most severe attempts at social control in U.S. history; The Alien Act and the Sedition Act.
The Alien Act, as I recall, was an internal passport systems for 'aliens'.
The Sedition Act threw into jail anyone who 'held the government in contempt'. The figures I heard were that about 10% of the population ended up in jail because of this, and quite a number of newpapers were shut down.
One more thing. A thing I can't understand. If people on 'The Left' agree on a certain point, they are members of a 'hive mentality', against life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But when those on 'The Right' agree on a point they are the defenders of those three rights. Do I have the heart of it?
Bonus project people! Look up the origins of the political meaning of 'Left' and 'Right'. it's quite amusing.
I find it rather amusing that the 'Federalists' claim to be in favour of freedom and against 'social control'.
As I recall, they initiated two of the most severe attempts at social control in U.S. history; The Alien Act and the Sedition Act.
The Alien Act, as I recall, was an internal passport systems for 'aliens'.
The Sedition Act threw into jail anyone who 'held the government in contempt'. The figures I heard were that about 10% of the population ended up in jail because of this, and quite a number of newpapers were shut down.
One more thing. A thing I can't understand. If people on 'The Left' agree on a certain point, they are members of a 'hive mentality', against life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But when those on 'The Right' agree on a point they are the defenders of those three rights. Do I have the heart of it?
Bonus project people! Look up the origins of the political meaning of 'Left' and 'Right'. it's quite amusing.
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
rgraham666 said:
Coming out strongly against The President will earn you few enemies here. His defenders here are few and far between and that is as it should be. My old party has sold its soul to the far religious right and thus, conservative views on a sight for erotica should be in the minority
Liberal views will always be equated to socialism or communism. That's the boogeyman on the farthest end of the far left. Conservative views will always be equated with facism & dictatorial tyranny. Those are the boogey men who await you at the far end of the far right.
It is not at all unusual for propagandists from either side to attempt to portray all spectrums of the opposition as merely flavors of the worst. What liberal propaganda attempts to do is paint all conservatives with the same brush, a brush dipped in the worst colors from the worst far right regimes. Conservative propagandists do ethe same to liberals. What each attempts to do is remove the individuality from the opposition. To make them the nameless, faceless drones, blindly following the most extremist tenets of liberalism or conservatisim.
I am conservative, but not reactionary. I am also an individual and while I favor many conservative positions I am no mindless drone. I don't think there are very many mindless drones out there on either side, cretainly not masses of them.
People vote republican because they see that party as being the best for them. People vote democrat for the same reason. The hardest point to drive home here for me has been why people favor the GOP. Far too many at this site are so blinded by their own views that they can blithely dismiss the legitimate concerns of others as uninformed or irrelevent.
I thought the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do. I thought the reasons for it were wrong and I vehemently disagree with the way things have been handled since Saddam was removed from power. Yet, if that were the only issue in the election I would still be voting for the GOP. I think the republican party will be more proactive and less tolerant of terrorists and the nations that sponsor terrorism.
Few elections however have been run on a single issue and this one is not one of the exceptions. To me the religious right's attacks on my civil liberties and particualarly on my reproductive rights are of more pressing importance to me than international terrorism. Like most people I don't feel either party represents even most of my views and concerns far less all of them. Unlike most people thist time around I can't pick one that represents even the most important ones.
It's a very tough time to be a conservative. On on hand you have the traditional enemy and party of liberals the democrats. On the other is the GOP, now ruled by reationary religious nuts and liberals in all but name in the Neo-cons. There simply isn't a conservative option.
So I don't even have my own SOB.
-Colly
p.s.
Right and left come from the french parliment. The seating was arranged in an amphitheatre style with a walk way down the middle. Before long people sat with their particular groups and thus the liberals were on the left half of the building and the conservatives on the right. I believe it is apocraphyl that the more conservative or liberal your view, the farther you sat to that side.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Welcome to the hive, rg. Your copy of Mao's little red book is on the way. Meanwhile, don't be startled to see that Bill Clinton's lie about Lewinsky is considered the equivalent of Bush/Cheney's lies, despite the fact that Lie B has brought the world to the brink of disaster. It's all the same, you see - actually, Clinton's lie was more serious because he was "under oath."
You won't find a single Bush/Cheney fan here who question their motive for having been reluctant to appoint a 9/ll commission, for having initially refused Condoleeza Rice's testimony in public and under oath, for having authorized secret flights out of the U.S. for Saudis including members of the bin Laden family (one, a nephew, who was the subject of an active FBI investigation) immediately after 9/ll while a no-fly order was in effect (Cheney explained that the Saudis were allowed to leave to protect them from "harrassment and discrimination", presumably by the FBI who were denied a request to interview the Saudis. To imply that the Bush family's long business associations with the Saudi elite might have proven embarrassing if over-examined after 9/ll, is to impune the president's patriotism, and put the lie to his oath to bring bin Laden to justice, so don't go there.)
You won't find a single Republican or independent Bush voter here who thinks the no-bid awarding of Iraq contracts to Halliburton Industries may have been motivated by anything less than what was best for America; or any outrage over the overcharges by Halliburton to the tune of $60 million and counting. You won't see any suspicion about the Vice President's refusal to reveal the names of those he invited to participate in a taxpayer-funded "Energy Policy Taskforce" after he took office. You'll find lots of talk in favor of energy independence for the U.S., but very little concern about what happens after the U.S. and the world run out of fossil fuels.
You will find very little interest in the portions of Paul O'Neill'sh book that are drawn directly from the records of cabinet meetings, other than questions about whether O'Neill ought to be prosecuted for possessing those documents. Not one Republican will admit to seeing anything questionable in the documented exchange about the administration's 2nd tax cut, during which GWB asked, "Haven't we already given to the wealthy? Shouldn't we do something for the middle class?" and was told by Cheney, "We won the mid-terms; this is our due." (an apt statement, since Cheney's annual benefit from the president's tax package is now in excess of $450,000).
If there's a Republican or Bush voter in this forum who is aware that the IRS under the Bush administration now audits a smaller percentage of upper-income tax returns and nearly three times as many returns of taxpayers in the lowest taxable bracket as in the previous 8 years - you won't hear it from them. (The poor can be sneaky, and if exposing the small-time tax frauds of families earning under $25,000 a year helps pay for Cheney's half-million-a-year tax break and also funds the War on Terror, it's the right thing to do.)
Most astonishingly, you won't find any Bush voters here who will admit that he's done a less than stellar job of fighting terrorism - nor will you find anyone who can explain by what standard they find him to be doing an even adequate job.
Nobody will seem concerned that maybe, if the orange alerts over the holidays were based on misleading internet "chatter" as Homeland Security now admits, it might mean that when we're not on high alert we should be. Everyone knows that if Al Gore had been elected, there would be more terrorism than there is now...Don't ask how they know, they just do.
You will find some concern over what's happened to our civil liberties since the Justice Department was turned over to John Ashcroft - but you might notice that nobody seems to blame George W. Bush for having appointed and supported Ashcroft.
You'll find a great deal of empathy for veterans here, except for Max Cleland and John Kerry. Kerry's contribution to the war effort in the Vietnam years will be glossed over, despite the fact that he volunteered for a second tour of duty even though he already knew what he'd be facing - It's not courage that led him to do so, you see, it was a political resume-building move.
You also won't get a lot of "amens" on the topic of GWB posing as a war hero, or any criticism of him for having lied to the press about his military service while he was governor of Texas ("I've been to war and I've raised twin daughters, and war is easier." He's a funny guy, and so down-to-earth, you've got to like him.)
You'll find a degree of righteous anger at Martha Stewart for having broken the law, and if you mention the Whitewater investigation, you'll elicit some foaming-at-the-mouth comments about Hillary Clinton's unproven lack of ethics - But mention Harken Energy and the SEC investigation that was headed by GWB's own former attorney at the direction of an SEC chairman appointed by Bush Sr., and you'll get shrugs of "so what?" and a call to let bygones be bygones.
Our boy Dubya may be one of the most dangerously unashamed snake-oil-salesmen ever to occupy the White House, or he may just be the slack-jawed dupe of Chalabi, Rumsfeld and Cheney, but no matter how many people die as a result of his dishonesty and/or gullibility, he's still "the lesser of two evils," whatever the hell that means.
If people admit that Bush/Cheney came into office with an Iraq war on their to-do list and deliberately misused resources that might have brought bin Laden to justice, then they won't be able to say with a straight face, "Al Gore could not have done any better."
So good luck with your logic. Just be sure to respect their opinions, even if their opinions are expressed in the form of internet scams and Heritage Foundation "think-tank" factoids. There are lots of ways to express oneself as an independent thinker, and ignoring Bush/Cheney's record is only one.
BTW, the hive will have a meeting soon to indoctrinate the new drones and teach you the secret handshake. I'm afraid I can't make it; I'm going back to reading dirty stories.
SR
Last edited:
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Bumping the lesser of two evils until a Bush/Cheney fan expresses some outrage over the lies, or until we run out of thread:
-------------------
BEFORE:
We know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Dick Cheney
Meet The Press
3/16/2003
AFTER:
You may be reading too much. I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
DoD News Briefing
6/24/2003
BEFORE:
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
8/26/2002
The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
12/4/2002
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
12/2/2002
AFTER:
I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
7/9/2003
BEFORE:
We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.
George W. Bush
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.
George W. Bush
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
AFTER:
DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —
PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?
George W. Bush
12/16/2003
BEFORE:
It {Iraq} actively maintains all key aspects of its offensive BW [biological weapons] program.
John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002
AFTER:
A British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were -- facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons."
Unnamed British Weapons Inspector
The Observer
6/15/2003
BEFORE:
There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Addresses the U.N. Security Council
2/5/2003
AFTER:
The biological weapons labs that we believe strongly are biological weapons labs, we didn't find any biological weapons with those labs. But should that give us any comfort? Not at all.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Associated Press Interview
6/12/2003
BEFORE:
I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction. Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board member
Washington Post, p. A27
3/23/2003
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
ABC Interview
3/30/2003
AFTER:
We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Fox News Interview
5/4/2003
No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored.
Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
Meet the Press
6/8/2003
BEFORE:
But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
4/10/2003
AFTER:
I'm not sure that's the major reason we went to war.
Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
NBC, Today Show
6/26/2003
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on. Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
Vanity Fair interview
5/28/2003
BEFORE:
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
3/17/2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.
General Tommy Franks, Commander in Chief Central Command
Press Conference
3/22/2003
AFTER:
Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
Joseph C. Wilson IV,Ambassador
New York Times Editorial
7/6/2003
SIMULTANEOUSLY:
But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
George W. Bush
Interview with TVP Poland
5/30/2003
We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
5/30/2003
BUT AT LEAST:
One thing is for certain: Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America with weapons of mass destruction. George W. Bush, President
Speech at a weapons factory in Ohio
5/25/2003
--------------
Bush fans: Which part of "He lied" is unclear? [/B][/QUOTE]
-------------------
BEFORE:
We know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Dick Cheney
Meet The Press
3/16/2003
AFTER:
You may be reading too much. I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
DoD News Briefing
6/24/2003
BEFORE:
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
8/26/2002
The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
12/4/2002
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
12/2/2002
AFTER:
I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
7/9/2003
BEFORE:
We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.
George W. Bush
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.
George W. Bush
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002
AFTER:
DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —
PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?
George W. Bush
12/16/2003
BEFORE:
It {Iraq} actively maintains all key aspects of its offensive BW [biological weapons] program.
John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002
AFTER:
A British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were -- facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons."
Unnamed British Weapons Inspector
The Observer
6/15/2003
BEFORE:
There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Addresses the U.N. Security Council
2/5/2003
AFTER:
The biological weapons labs that we believe strongly are biological weapons labs, we didn't find any biological weapons with those labs. But should that give us any comfort? Not at all.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Associated Press Interview
6/12/2003
BEFORE:
I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction. Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board member
Washington Post, p. A27
3/23/2003
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
ABC Interview
3/30/2003
AFTER:
We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Fox News Interview
5/4/2003
No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored.
Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
Meet the Press
6/8/2003
BEFORE:
But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
4/10/2003
AFTER:
I'm not sure that's the major reason we went to war.
Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
NBC, Today Show
6/26/2003
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on. Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
Vanity Fair interview
5/28/2003
BEFORE:
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
3/17/2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.
General Tommy Franks, Commander in Chief Central Command
Press Conference
3/22/2003
AFTER:
Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
Joseph C. Wilson IV,Ambassador
New York Times Editorial
7/6/2003
SIMULTANEOUSLY:
But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
George W. Bush
Interview with TVP Poland
5/30/2003
We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
5/30/2003
BUT AT LEAST:
One thing is for certain: Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America with weapons of mass destruction. George W. Bush, President
Speech at a weapons factory in Ohio
5/25/2003
--------------
Bush fans: Which part of "He lied" is unclear? [/B][/QUOTE]
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Colleen Thomas said:
It's a tough time to be liberal, moderate, poor, middle-class, environmentally aware, a teenager in need of birth control, a school teacher, a police officer or fireman whose benefits have been slashed at the local level to help subsidize the federal tax cut, an athiest, an agnostic, a member of any non-Christian religion, a citizen of any country in the Middle East, a woman in Iraq, or anyone in Afghanistan. It's not a good time to be unemployed or about to be; it's the worst time since the Depression to be unemployed for a length of time that surpassews the duration of your unemployment benefits (don't hold your breath waiting for an extension).
It's an uncomfortable time to be a CIA agent whose career has been ruined and whose associates and informants have been placed at risk by a White House vendetta. It's a particularly bad time to be in the military and of low rank, because your benefits and your family's are being cut at the same time your term of service is becoming open-ended (we'll make up for it by Supporting Our Troops in a moral sense if not a financial one.)
It's an excellent time to be a fetus, a religious extremist (Christian protestant), a paid White House religious consultant (aka "Faith-Based Initiatives"), a duck-hunting buddy of a Supreme Court Justice, a member of John Ashcroft's all-volunteer employee prayer group, a member of the board of Halliburton Industries or its subsidiaries, or of a company in the pharmaceuticals or energy industry.
It's also a good time to be a terrorist in the middle east. You've just been given carte blance to operate anywhere in Iraq, which was off limits until recently.
It's an amusing time to be Osama Bin Laden, too, I should imagine. The most powerful head of state in the world is behaving as predictably as you had hoped.
Last edited:
Similar threads
