# Next Target Iran.



## Vintij (Feb 15, 2007)

"So when Bush asks America to give his plan to send 21,000 troops to fortify Baghdad and help train Iraqi security forces "a chance," what he's really saying is, 'regardless of what Congress, the American people and the Iraq Study Group want to see happen, I will send 50,000 under-equipped troops into the meat-grinder so that they can more effectively arm and train Shiite militias.' This, while the administration steadfastly refuses to engage in a parallel diplomatic push with Iraq's neighbors -- one that might give the plan some small chance of success -- choosing instead to rattle its saber towards Iran.

Sen. Chris Dodd responded to all this by saying: "This is the United States Senate. This is not some city council somewhere  It seems to me sending something down that engages the president, that forces the administration to pay attention is something we ought to be considering."

Russ Feingold added, "A political victory is not more important than ending this war," and he's right. With an attack against Iran seeming ever more probable, this is the time to lay down hard constraints, to cut funding for Bush's escalation, demand he seek congressional authorization to spread his conflict beyond Iraq and move towards ending the occupation. Anything less at this point is too little, too late."

I couldnt agree more. What do you people think?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 15, 2007)

I think you have your head buried in the sand to ignore the obvious threat the Iranian regime poses. Personally, when people start announcing they plan to commit genocide, I think we should take them seriously.

Iran has been supplying our enemies in Iraq and even sending troops lately. Let's stop tip toeing around the issue and admit that they are engaged in a war against us.

Leaving Iraq will not stop war. The only way to stop the war is to defeat our enemies.


----------



## Vintij (Feb 15, 2007)

So basically you want two Iraq situations? Look even if people did agree with you, its just impossible. This isnt world war 2, there is no draft. So how can we have even close to enough troops to invade iran when we are already spread thin trying to train iraqi soldiers and keep democracy in iraq? And on top of that have enough reserves back home incase of invasion. The only way it would be logical to invade iran would be to enforce the draft, and good luck getting that passed by congress. Other than that all you have are bombs, and nukes to replace soldiers.....its not logical or strategic to fight a war with just bombs and nukes, it worked in hiroshima because japan didnt have them, infact nobody had them! Now everyone has them and that would set off nuclear war. I think we can agree that nuclear war is not what anybody wants.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 15, 2007)

Vintij said:


> So basically you want two Iraq situations? Look even if people did agree with you, its just impossible. This isnt world war 2, there is no draft. So how can we have even close to enough troops to invade iran when we are already spread thin trying to train iraqi soldiers and keep democracy in iraq? And on top of that have enough reserves back home incase of invasion. The only way it would be logical to invade iran would be to enforce the draft, and good luck getting that passed by congress. Other than that all you have are bombs, and nukes to replace soldiers.....its not logical or strategic to fight a war with just bombs and nukes, it worked in hiroshima because japan didnt have them, infact nobody had them! Now everyone has them and that would set off nuclear war. I think we can agree that nuclear war is not what anybody wants.



Did I say we need to invade Iran? There are plenty of things we can do to defeat an enemy without invasion. We beat the Soviets without invasion. Id just like the American people to stop pretending they arent the enemy.

If they continue fighting us in Iraq, I dont really see how we have a choice in the matter.


----------



## Creek_George (Feb 15, 2007)

What do I think about Iran?

Wheeew..(big breath).

I remember the day we went into Iraq..and the American determination...The Spirit we all had to kick some butt...Most all of us wanted payback after 911..and we did go after the Taliwonkers in Afghanistan to remove them from power.

This war with Iraq was based totaly on bull_hit when it came to invading Iraq,to occupy...and to believe we could bring an "Operation Freedom" to the Iraqi people...It was not not about that at all..to begin with.

More U.S. Soldiers will have died...than that of the 911 terrorist attack in the weeks to months/years.....More death..and suffering than we can imagine for the innocent Iraqi people...They are the victims of our aggression...This all backfired...(my opinion).

We created a nightmare in my opinion.

I also feel other world communities knew we drumed up reasons for going there...and feel it's our mess...They are watching us even more close now..than ever before.

Iran can get away with alot right now...because even if Israel pulls any aggression the Middle East right now...well..need I say more?

It was going after weapons of mass destruction when it came to Iraq..and ties to terrorist organizations etc...to remove a bad man from power.There is no argument in that..Saddam was a ruthless man..and ruled with an iron fist.It's amazing at one time we helped train..and equiped the Iraqi's to inflict pain on the Iranian's during that war those two countries had.

I say talk with the Iranian Government...negotiate.That's just as good for them..as it is us.

This world needs a good kick in the arse..in geting along..We the U.S. need to be an influential power..Not just protecting our interests..but be a dam light-house of truth..and freedom.

I think this was a personal & money orientated adventure with Iraq..a gamble.Was our intelligence that bad just after 911?...Could that of been prevented...Obviously not with the data we had on Iraq..(shaking my head).

I am suspect of any evidence this administration pulls out from a hat..after the bologna with Iraq...Bush was such good so called friends with Putin before this war..and I bet they don't even answer the phone for eachother now.

We had most every civilized country in the world behind us after 911....we used that as an excuse to go into Iraq...But WHO did that??

American's were not protesting in the streets to attack Iraq...We wanted justice...to go after the source...Well..we believed what we were told.We were willing back then...

With failure we seek to find out why this started with Iraq..We already know how...This administration shoved it down the American peoples throat..we bought it.

Iran is not gona be an easy sell...and if Bush thinks he can ignore the American people a second time around with Iran...he's mistaken.

I see it all so clearly now in that we failed in Iraq...

If we would of succeded.. the truth in all this that brought it all about...would be clouded with victory.."Mission Accomplished".

I think this was the greatest blunder ever....100's of Billions of dollars poured into a mistake..and an open wound that will never heal.

The top brass says we couldn't handle a war with Iran...How the heck can we afford one...by puting all our cash into a previous mistake..that will end up costing more than 10 wars when all is said..and done....Some will get rick..but us tax payers will pay..Our children will be paying.

Our troops are tied down...and so is our cash supply to start more trouble.

We turned Iraq into a Gaza Strip..and then some...Peace between the Sunni & Shiites over there in Iraq...is like that of Israel & the Palestinans.

We learn from our mistakes...but this Iraq thing is a Big One.

I like pointing the finger...and can't say I supported this war to begin with.BUT at that point in time we all felt different about it..at the starting of it.

What was funny..is if this would of been said a month after we went in..it would of been bashing our troops..I believe even they look at this different now.....It was all based on the American Spirit...to question was like siding with the enemy.

The great wars of history...were protecting our freedoms..The ones now days are special interest...Usualy in the oil regions we hear conflict...Even the media..and administrations can influence us.

I have no answers..just yacking some..Spoke my mind tonight..

My life is no better..than how the affairs of the world works..But in day..to day life we gota accept it...We can't fight everything...and we all know might don't make right...

Peace...


----------



## Bullypulpit (Feb 15, 2007)

I watched Chimpy McPresident's press conference yesterday, and it was frightening. President Bush has already made up his mind. It's not a matter of if American forces engage Iranian forces, but when and on what pretext. He's going to do what he will, everyone else be damned.

It's really little different from when he was denying the US forces would be invading Iraq all the while having made up his mind to do so. The stakes, this time, are much greater. Iran's military will not be the push-over Iraq's military was. Already stretched thin, not just in Iraq, but in general, US forces would be  hard pressed to do more than fall back to defensive positions and hope for relief.

Military action would also carry the very real potential of further destabilizing the whole Middle East. Iraq is already the killing ground in a proxy-war between Sunnis and Shi'ias. Imagine the consequences to the region if Saudi Arabia sends troops in from the south, Iran sends troops in from east and Syria from the north-west. The smaller Gulf states would be swept along with whatever branch of Islam the majority of their populations adhere to. Oil production would plummet and the economic, political and military shock-waves would be felt around the world. The possibility of triggering a third world war is very real. 

Chimpy and Co seem to have willfully ignored these, and other consequences of engaging in military action against Iran. And it is for that reason, as much as any other, they must be stopped. It's time for Republicans and Democrats to stop playing the bunch of quibble-dicks they are and act to stop this Administration from engaging in a course of action which could spark another global conflict. If articles of impeachment are the only way to do so, then so be it. Better a constitutional crisis in America than a world war which will make the last one seem as a Sunday school outing in comparison.


----------



## Creek_George (Feb 15, 2007)

Well said Bullypulpit...

Good post man!

What makes me think most..if a second blunder is done...It would be like kicking some guys arse that didn't have it coming twice...The smaller ones in the school yard will join up sooner..more than later.

I always feel more safe with a group of friends...and I'm a big guy.

We can negotiate..mediate..We all play by the same rules in our communities...the world has to start sometime...We gota sit down with these people..and put sh_t to paper...more world involvement...I know the bologna in that..but going it alone has not been paying off....In an action that one needs to give a spanking..we need a dam good reason...We as people reason pretty dam good...but the world does not...I just can't grasp the madness tonight.....(smile)..It's B.S...


----------



## Annie (Feb 15, 2007)

Creek_George said:


> Well said Bullypulpit...
> 
> Good post man!
> 
> ...



Which guys? The Sadr bunch? While in Iran his take seems to be anything the US is against. So not that.


----------



## NuclearWinter (Feb 15, 2007)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9T-XzeFuYk[/ame]

Video clip about Bush and his plans for Iran.

Just click on the link above to watch.


----------



## NuclearWinter (Feb 15, 2007)

All those who are self-mutilating lovers....get ready to get excited, because your Wish for the United States to be suckered into another War, a bloodier war, is very close to coming true.


----------



## Creek_George (Feb 15, 2007)

Well that guy in charge now..can thank the Sadr thugs for puting him in power..He's refused to act against them..I think just as much..if not more killings have happened under him..as the Sunnis..I just am not buying all the media interpetations that we hear..(my opinion).

Negotiating with them..or not..is not an option..They can tie us down for years there just with a million investment a year in road side bombs..some gun pwder..and wire..and some pipes..and plastic..to our billions..Largest religious sect...and a strong young following...They control..we police.

In a way..we handed Iraq..to Iran..The Sunni will never have foot hold there again...A political..or military victory is not gona happen...The ones who control Iraq..are now in Iran...We can't wait them out...Life is 20 times worse now in Iraq..than under Saddam...

I'd negotiate now...more than later...We have no cards left..(my opinion)..and we're just turning over everything to those that do..and will control Iraq anyways...and that's the ones we are fighting.

We'll spend trillions to make it look like Iran & Iraq are not holding hands...Protect the border?...It's like a border between any other religion..with a dozen popes added in..Talk about confusion?...These people are serious over there....This Iraqi Freedom thing is far from the case...It looks good on paper..but over there is another world in itself.

It's now a battle from keeping this Iraq..from being another Iran..or Syria...They have tasted western aggression...see it...It's like...Ok.....I just don't see good things...Like I said..I don't have the answers...but do so wih we could all sit down at the table...What is so hard into not killing people..and making a government be responsible?

I am that way with a group of friends..camping...Even strangers that were vegetarian..and no matter what religion..

I guess with this Sadr guy...he's runing the show already..In many ways..it don't matter what we do..or say..The outcome may be his how things turn out...

Plus..it's not a U.S. thing now..it's an Iraqi thing...We have to negoiate because of the 3 main sects there...kurds,sunni..shiit...We have to leave out OUR interests there.....We have to remember..this was a war on WMD....We have a responsibilty..to sunni & shiit alike...We don't have that control..nor ever will...

So to negotiate should not be to our terms..but for the people of Iraq....the region.

Who are we fighting?...Road side bombs..Insurgents?....Special forces from Iran?...Al Qaeda?..Sunni?..Shiit Militias...all colorful names.

Nobody wants to sit at a table over there...(true)..and the red,white..and blue aint accomplishing squat.

How would one negotiate in a pile of poop like this?....We can't change sides...but we can get the rest of the Middle East...to help..Put an end to the blood shed...These people over there will hang you if kill,molest..or steal...I don't believe in the abuse of rights...especialy to women...But so many are crying right now..(mothers)..Breaks my heart..

Innocent people...massive amounts..You all know that...So where do we draw the line..and negotiate?...When we outdo the casualties...??

I'm sad now..because most Iraqi's did have hope...even after the first Gulf War...It's really sad how things turned out...

I do now admit..is there may be no one party we can/could ever negotiate with in Iraq....It just feels if we don't accomplish something...that Iraq will be worse off than Somalia..or that Dafur Region we hear so much about in Africa.

Sorry so long...a couple beers in me go a long ways..


----------



## NuclearWinter (Feb 15, 2007)

Creek_George said:


> Well that guy in charge now..can thank the Sadr thugs for puting him in power..He's refused to act against them..I think just as much..if not more killings have happened under him..as the Sunnis..I just am not buying all the media interpetations that we hear..(my opinion).
> 
> Negotiating with them..or not..is not an option..They can tie us down for years there just with a million investment a year in road side bombs..some gun pwder..and wire..and some pipes..and plastic..to our billions..Largest religious sect...and a strong young following...They control..we police.
> 
> ...



Powerful Creek. Powerful because of where it comes from man. =) I hear ya.


----------



## Creek_George (Feb 15, 2007)

Thanks NuclearWinter...just feelings bro.

High Five..(Crack).

It sure would be a challenge to mediate between two that didn't get along...Especialy if they wanted to kill eachother....(oohh man).

I'm an armchair warrior bro...but just say it how I see it from my end.I do admit..I get bumbed not as many see things my way..I was gona say "smart" enough...but that would only be half as funny to the rest of the crowd.(smile).

It just seems like the last 10 years ..and at this point in time we think about....well more world affairs stuff than ever before.

Even somebody who has never even voted before with no political ties..or beliefs is ten fold smarter than your average voter....I'm not saying everybody is stupid..and the average voter thing is just how I feel...I'm frustrated with the masses...so shoot me...LOL..

Being silly...just am a dreamer..Nothing wrong with that...

I'm the fool on the hill bro...(handshake)...and a high five..


----------



## red states rule (Feb 16, 2007)

Creek_George said:


> Well said Bullypulpit...
> 
> Good post man!
> 
> ...




Neville Chamberlain thought the same thing about Hitler

50 million people died because he thought the world could sit down with the Nazi's and reason with them


----------



## Avatar4321 (Feb 16, 2007)

NuclearWinter said:


> Powerful Creek. Powerful because of where it comes from man. =) I hear ya.



You've wander outside your normal thread... nice to see you participating more finally.


----------



## Darwins Friend (Feb 16, 2007)

Avatar4321 said:


> Leaving Iraq will not stop war. The only way to stop the war is to defeat our enemies.



Leaving Iraq will start the war - *The Civil War.* 

All thats occurring now is target practice - upon American forces.


----------



## Bullypulpit (Feb 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Neville Chamberlain thought the same thing about Hitler
> 
> 50 million people died because he thought the world could sit down with the Nazi's and reason with them




And thanks for playing "Really Bad Analogies"! ( Gameshow music in the background.)

The situation we face in Iraq, and the Middle East in general, is a direct result of Chimpy McPresident's failed policies, and the lies they were based upon, in Iraq.


----------



## NuclearWinter (Feb 16, 2007)

I can't get over the fact certain people actually believe that we have a chance in Iraq. That we will "win the war on terror" by defeating the insurgents in Iraq.

At best. All we could do is liberate Iraq, even if we pushed all the insurgents out. Then what? What would we do then? Would we set up an American post there permanently? Yeah right? It would be blown up before we knew what hit us.

Rule number one. America can not take over Iraq. It can not even create a stable Iraq. 

Never in history, has one country been "saved" by another country, without the people of that country taking care of the core issues for themselves.

In other words, no country ever became free, unless it was the people of THAT country itself that decided it wanted it that way.

Britain got it's ass wooped by Scottland and Ireland. lol. Back in the day. Why? Because Scottland and Ireland said, "we're taking matters into our own hands."

They didn't need another country to come in and "save the day". Nobody did anyways.

We will never win the "war on terror", because it can't be won militarily or politicly. There is no way to win a "war on terror", when you have no real enemy to defeat. That war could go on for ages (it won't it will only last for another 3-4 years or so due to Mother Nature interfering), but if she didn't, I guarantee you that this war would never end. EVER. If the Controllers had it their way, we would be suckered into fighting the war on "terror" for thousands upon thousands of years.

And they would have hoped to eliminate most of the World's population as well.

These people are sick, twisted, and they have an agenda that will never work for them. They truly believe that they are on the verge of achieving total dominance. They are wrong. lol. They are on the verge of watching all that dissapear, they just don't know it yet.

It's funny to watch all of this stuff from the outside looking in. You can see it all clearly that way. 

Whatever you do folks, don't let yourself get dragged into the illusion of it all. Once you get pulled into it, you can't see clearly in one direction or the other. No, you need to remain outside of it all, observing, and then you can see what's really going on here.


----------



## Bullypulpit (Feb 16, 2007)

Avatar4321 said:


> I think you have your head buried in the sand to ignore the obvious threat the Iranian regime poses. Personally, when people start announcing they plan to commit genocide, I think we should take them seriously.
> 
> Iran has been supplying our enemies in Iraq and even sending troops lately. Let's stop tip toeing around the issue and admit that they are engaged in a war against us.
> 
> Leaving Iraq will not stop war. The only way to stop the war is to defeat our enemies.



The only ones blind to any threat here are those who continue to support Chimpy and Co in their messianic, manichean vision. They are blind to the very real threat this Administration poses, not only to the very foundation of the Republic, but the world as a whole. They threaten the very fabric of the Constitution, which they SWORE to uphold and defend. They threaten to further destabilize the middle east and, in doing so, the peace of the world as a whole.


----------



## red states rule (Feb 16, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> The only ones blind to any threat here are those who continue to support Chimpy and Co in their messianic, manichean vision. They are blind to the very real threat this Administration poses, not only to the very foundation of the Republic, but the world as a whole. They threaten the very fabric of the Constitution, which they SWORE to uphold and defend. They threaten to further destabilize the middle east and, in doing so, the peace of the world as a whole.



The only one blind are libs who see the only threat to the US is Pres Bush. Libs are consumed with their hate and rage for the man they fail to see they are handing a victrory to the terrorists on a silver platter

If the terrorists hit the US again, lisb will smile, and start ranting how Pres bush failed to protect the US


----------



## Darwins Friend (Feb 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> If the terrorists hit the US again, lisb will smile, and start ranting how Pres bush failed to protect the US



Has he done a single thing to secure our border with Mexico?

If you were a bad guy from another land - would you use Mexico as your entry point into our country?


----------



## Annie (Feb 16, 2007)

Darwins Friend said:


> Has he done a single thing to secure our border with Mexico?
> 
> If you were a bad guy from another land - would you use Mexico as your entry point into our country?



No. 

Yes.


----------



## Bullypulpit (Feb 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The only one blind are libs who see the only threat to the US is Pres Bush. Libs are consumed with their hate and rage for the man they fail to see they are handing a victrory to the terrorists on a silver platter
> 
> If the terrorists hit the US again, lisb will smile, and start ranting how Pres bush failed to protect the US



Sadly enough, he will have failed to protect the US in the event of such a tragedy. In haring off after Saddam Hussein under dubious, if not outright false, pretenses, he and his administration took their eye off the ball. 

The Taliban and Al Qaeda have been free to make a resurgence into Afghanistan, after assets that could have been used to secure that country were pulled into Iraq. Before going into Iraq, the world stood beside America and the Bush administration in pursuit of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Now the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq has become the "coalition of the leaving". The credibility of the office of the POTUS is in tatters, given the <i>causus belli</i> for invading Iraq was proven false and the evidence is mounting that President Bush and his administration cherry-picked, spun and fabricated from whole cloth, the rationale for war. America's ports, nuclear and chemical facilities lie as unprotected now as they were the day before 9/11. FEMA has been effectively gutted, and our response to disasters, whether man-made or natural has been severely blunted. American military readiness stands at its lowest point in decades.

Your claim that any opposed to this administration or its policies are somehow "collaborating with the enemy" is as specious now as it was the day Attorney General John Ashcroft told Congress "You're either with us, or for the terrorists."...A tactic straight from Hermann Goering's play book. It is bullshit and you know it. 

So, when terror strikes America again, no one you call "liberal" will smile or gloat. We will shake our heads sadly, say "We told you so.", roll up our sleeves and clean up the mess, making sure it never happens again. And it will be done the right way.


----------



## red states rule (Feb 16, 2007)

Libs want to grant US Constitutional right s to terrorists, they block every method to capture and track them, they gloat when the NY Slimes publishes classified documents; they smear the troops every chance they get; and WILL jump for joy when the US is hit again

To libs, they see this not as war on terror - but a war on Bush


----------



## Bullypulpit (Feb 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Libs want to grant US Constitutional right s to terrorists, they block every method to capture and track them, they gloat when the NY Slimes publishes classified documents; they smear the troops every chance they get; and WILL jump for joy when the US is hit again
> 
> To libs, they see this not as war on terror - but a war on Bush



No. I don't want to give constitutional rights to the detainees at GITMO. Just due process...You know, <i>habeas corpus</i>, the cornerstone of Western jurisprudence for nearly eight centuries...Key to the values America's founding fathers set down in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution...Without which NO other rights are possible, for ANYONE. 

So, grab your ears, give them a good tug and pop your head out of you ass.


----------



## CTRLALTDEL (Feb 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Libs want to grant US Constitutional right s to terrorists, they block every method to capture and track them, they gloat when the NY Slimes publishes classified documents; they smear the troops every chance they get; and WILL jump for joy when the US is hit again
> 
> To libs, they see this not as war on terror - but a war on Bush






Typical talking points of the SEVERELY BRAINWASHED..........

Cons.....the brain is a terrible think to waste......USE IT!!!


----------



## NuclearWinter (Feb 17, 2007)

When I said "These people" are "sick and twisted", I wasn't speaking only about the "terrorists", which by the way, is a label that you can put on just about anyone you desire. No I was also speaking about the people in our own country and abroad who are attempting to weaken, and then totally dominate, the citizens of the United States of America.

And that very label...."terrorist"... is why we will never win the war on "terrorism", because as long as we decide who gets the label, than the label will never die. And neither will all of the people who we've given it to.

We can't win peace by waging war. You can't have true World peace by killing and murdering.

Have we learned nothing from Mahatma Gandhi ? It may have taken the man 20 years to liberate his people from Britain, but my God, he achieved his goal anyways.

I guarantee you all that we will have World peace very soon on this planet. With the coming Shift of the Poles, which will cause the end of WAR for a millennium, due to the fact that for the first time in a very long time every single country on the World will have to pull itself together in order to help it's people who will be in great need of love, courage, empathy, food, water, clothes, and hope. All of the basic essentials for Human Beings to survive.

Not brutality, guns, smoke, ashes, flags, pride, graves, sickness, and death that come along with War.

The World will have taken a 360 degree turn in terms of the way our consciousness will have changed.

We will no longer look for WAR as the answer to peace. That entire concept will soon be coming to an end.


----------



## trobinett (Feb 17, 2007)

NuclearWinter said:


> When I said "These people" are "sick and twisted", I wasn't speaking only about the "terrorists", which by the way, is a label that you can put on just about anyone you desire. No I was also speaking about the people in our own country and abroad who are attempting to weaken, and then totally dominate, the citizens of the United States of America.
> 
> And that very label...."terrorist"... is why we will never win the war on "terrorism", because as long as we decide who gets the label, than the label will never die. And neither will all of the people who we've given it to.
> 
> ...



I would be most interested in WHEN the concept of war might be ending.


----------



## Bullypulpit (Feb 17, 2007)

trobinett said:


> I would be most interested in WHEN the concept of war might be ending.



History has shown us the cultures that "ain't a gonna study war no more" are no longer with us or are in danger of extinction. We must be able to use force in response to force when diplomacy fails, and never as the aggressor. War is the judicious application of force, and Iraq is as injudicious a use of force as there ever was.


----------



## NuclearWinter (Feb 17, 2007)

Right Bullypit. 

However, no country or culture that has ever survived on War and Force alone has ever remained in power permanently either.

This is because all things change. Nothing stays the same.

So with this simple fact in mind. What are we (The people of the World) going to choose? War and Force? Or Love and Peace?


----------



## Bullypulpit (Feb 17, 2007)

NuclearWinter said:


> Right Bullypit.
> 
> However, no country or culture that has ever survived on War and Force alone has ever remained in power permanently either.
> 
> ...



How about amending it to "Love, peace and prosperity. But keep your powder dry and your knife sharp."?


----------



## maineman (Feb 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The only one blind are libs who see the only threat to the US is Pres Bush. Libs are consumed with their hate and rage for the man they fail to see they are handing a victrory to the terrorists on a silver platter
> 
> If the terrorists hit the US again, lisb will smile, and start ranting how Pres bush failed to protect the US



no... I really think that Bush is leading us over the precipice into hell, but I would be just as irate at this stupid war and its inept prosecution if president Kerry had been doing it.

This has little to do with Bush for me, and everything to do with stopping this war in Iraq - which I truly believe is counterproductive - and starting the real war against islamic extremism.


----------



## maineman (Feb 17, 2007)

rd stats rul said:


> Libs want to grant US Constitutional right s to terrorists, they block every method to capture and track them, they gloat when the NY Slimes publishes classified documents; they smear the troops every chance they get; and WILL jump for joy when the US is hit again
> 
> To libs, they see this not as war on terror - but a war on Bush



not so.

I have no desire to grant constitutional rights to terrorists.  I only want to make sure that we treat detainees in a way that we are willing to let our enemies of the future treat captured US troops.

I do not want to block EVERY METHOD...I only object to wiretaps without warrants on US citizens.  

I have never gloated when classified documents were published and I have NEVER  smeared our troops...

and your suggestion that I would jump for joy when America is hit again enrages me... it frrustrates me beyond belief that you are sitting somewhere behind your computer and not standing in front of me where I could beat on you until the cops pulled me off, or until you stopped moving, whichever came first.


----------



## Darwins Friend (Feb 17, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Libs want to grant US Constitutional right s to terrorists, they block every method to capture and track them, they gloat when the NY Slimes publishes classified documents; they smear the troops every chance they get; and WILL jump for joy when the US is hit again
> 
> To libs, they see this not as war on terror - but a war on Bush



Thanks for addressing my questions.


----------



## red states rule (Feb 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> not so.
> 
> I have no desire to grant constitutional rights to terrorists.  I only want to make sure that we treat detainees in a way that we are willing to let our enemies of the future treat captured US troops.
> 
> ...




Libs now want to free the terrorists in Gitmo...........


Democrats Mull Plan To Close Guantanamo
Key House Democrats Suggest Speedy Trial Or Release Of Most Prisoners



(AP) Key House Democrats said Thursday they are considering a plan to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the end of 2008, with the exception of several dozen detainees in the war on terror who would be kept at the facility and tried there. 

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said he hopes to include the provision in legislation this spring that Democrats also intend to use to try to prevent further increases in troop strength in the war in Iraq. 

Without public notice, Murtha dispatched Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., to the detention center at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay on a one-day trip late last month to recommend ways for closing it. Both men said the prison has become counterproductive as the United States tries to win converts overseas in the war on terror. 

Without closing it, this just plays into the propaganda of the enemy, Moran said in an interview. 

The prison was opened on Jan 11, 2002, and none of the more than 700 prisoners who have entered the facility  suspected of links to al Qaeda and the Taliban  has ever been tried. 

Moran said there currently are 393 detainees at the prison, and added he had told Murtha about 80 of are likely to face trial, including 14 whom he described as high value targets. 

The Virginia lawmaker said 87 other detainees can probably be released without trial and should go either to their country of origin, or if that isn't possible, to Afghanistan, where they were captured. 

Moran said he had recommended requiring the administration to review the cases of the remaining detainees promptly and decide which of them should be held for trial and which should be released. 

The facility at Guantanamo Bay has been the subject of extensive political and legal debate, and drawn protests by human rights activists since it was opened. The European Union has urged closing the facility. 

The Pentagon recently released new rules to govern trials at the prison, based on a law passed by Congress last year that permits the administration to go ahead with special military commissioners to hear the cases. 

Authorities recently drafted charges against three detainees, and they are expected to be formally filed soon. Once that occurs, regulations require preliminary hearings within 30 days and the start of a jury trial within 120 days at Guantanamo Bay. 

Moran estimated that it could take five years for all the trials to take place. 

He said the rest of the prison population should be out at least by the end of next year. That is our intent. We feel this is one of the reasons we've lost so much credibility in the war on terror, he said. 

Murtha is chairman of a House subcommittee with jurisdiction over spending on military matters. Moran is a member of the panel.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/08/terror/main2452243.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_2452243


OBL never had a better friend then the Democrat Party. Libs think if we coddle the the terrorists, then the terrorists will coddle their prisoners. Yea right. Tell that shit to Nick Berg's family

Libs will be happy when the US is hit again. They would see it as a defeat for Pres Bush, and as usual, they would jump on him with both feet. Libs have only one goal in life, to smear Pres Bush, the troops, and anyone who disagrees with them


----------



## dilloduck (Feb 18, 2007)

Yank all our military from the region and watch Iran march to control it all including the oil. Sounds like a great plan to me. May as well sit back while Israel burn too. I assume everyone is ready to be blackmailed by Iran--again?


----------



## red states rule (Feb 18, 2007)

dilloduck said:


> Yank all our military from the region and watch Iran march to control it all including the oil. Sounds like a great plan to me. May as well sit back while Israel burns too.






Then after the Dems cut off funding, they can balme Pres Bush and the US military for not getting the job done


----------



## dilloduck (Feb 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Then after the Dems cut off funding, they can balme Pres Bush and the US military for not getting the job done



Of course--the GOP screwed the situation up so badly that how could anyone expect the dems to fix it. Can you feel it coming? Being blackmailed by Iran (again) will be such fun !!


----------



## red states rule (Feb 18, 2007)

dilloduck said:


> Of course--the GOP screwed the situation up so badly that how could anyone expect the dems to fix it. Can you feel it coming? Being blackmailed by Iran (again) will be such fun !!



The Dems are the biggest bunch of cowards I have ever seen. Dems are the best friends OBL and the terrorists have

Watching Motor Mouth Murtha say how the terrorists in Iraq would disappera when the US militray leaves Iraq was funny to watch.

Seeing the Dems undermine the war, smear the troops, and make theterrosist job easioer - I understand why the symbol of the Dem party is a jackass


----------



## maineman (Feb 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> your words? more like the DNC talking points
> 
> go burn a US flag or join in a pro terrorist rally
> 
> it will make you feel better




what foolishness.  How old are you, really?


----------



## red states rule (Feb 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> what foolishness.  How old are you, really?



Truth does cause libs to recoil in fear

Old enough to see through your liberal garbage and the distain you have for anyone who disagrees with you


----------



## maineman (Feb 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Truth does cause libs to recoil in fear
> 
> Old enough to see through your liberal garbage and the distain you have for anyone who disagrees with you



no...ask kathianne...I do not automatically disdain anyone who disagrees with me.  She and I have had long and probing and respectful conversations.  We talk about issues....all you like to do is hurl bombs.  And if you say it often enough, you might make yourself believe that I am somehow "fearful" of you.... but trust me, I really am not.  Frustrated?  yes.  Bored? getting there.  Afraid??  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA  No FUCKING way!


----------



## red states rule (Feb 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...ask kathianne...I do not automatically disdain anyone who disagrees with me.  She and I have had long and probing and respectful conversations.  We talk about issues....all you like to do is hurl bombs.  And if you say it often enough, you might make yourself believe that I am somehow "fearful" of you.... but trust me, I really am not.  Frustrated?  yes.  Bored? getting there.  Afraid??  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA  No FUCKING way!



Hey, you started with the insults not me. You are like most libs, facts to you have the same reaction as Holy Water on the Devil


----------



## Hamiltonian (Feb 18, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Hey, you started with the insults not me. You are like most libs, facts to you have the same reaction as Holy Water on the Devil



Why do you seem so fearful about bringing Terrorists to trial?  You seem to be convinced that all the people in Gitmo are Terrorists, so then you must be relying on good evidence.  Why are you so afraid to have the evidence presented in a court of law?  Are you afraid that they might not actually be Terrorists?


----------



## Redhots (Feb 18, 2007)

Hamiltonian said:


> Why do you seem so fearful about bringing Terrorists to trial?  You seem to be convinced that all the people in Gitmo are Terrorists, so then you must be relying on good evidence.  Why are you so afraid to have the evidence presented in a court of law?  Are you afraid that they might not actually be Terrorists?



You must be new here.

Red States, like some others here, just doesn't give a shit about things like due process and all that.  Unless the topic is a corrupt GOP member or serviceman.


----------



## red states rule (Feb 19, 2007)

Hamiltonian said:


> Why do you seem so fearful about bringing Terrorists to trial?  You seem to be convinced that all the people in Gitmo are Terrorists, so then you must be relying on good evidence.  Why are you so afraid to have the evidence presented in a court of law?  Are you afraid that they might not actually be Terrorists?



Terrorists do not have a right to the Federal Courts. They should be tried by a military tribunal


----------



## Redhots (Feb 19, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Terrorists do not have a right to the Federal Courts. They should be tried by a military tribunal



Because?


----------



## red states rule (Feb 19, 2007)

Redhots said:


> Because?



Foreign terrorists do not have US Constitutional rights when captured on the battlefield


----------



## Gurdari (Feb 19, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Foreign terrorists do not have US Constitutional rights when captured on the battlefield



Why were those rights created in the first place? What is the point of having a legal system like this? Don't those reasons remain? Isn't applying and maintaining high standards of justice and law one of the things that makes a nation great?


----------



## Annie (Feb 19, 2007)

Gurdari said:


> Why were those rights created in the first place? What is the point of having a legal system like this? Don't those reasons remain? Isn't applying and maintaining high standards of justice and law one of the things that makes a nation great?



For US citizens and permanent residents, ie those here legally. Not those picked up on the battlefield, etc.


----------



## maineman (Feb 19, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> For US citizens and permanent residents, ie those here legally. Not those picked up on the battlefield, etc.



I agree that full US constitutional protections are not afforded to prisoners captured on the battlefield...but there are indeed some protections that are afforded to them by the constitution - those being any protections granted to them by any treaty signed by this government - which, according to the constitution, become the law of the land once signed.

The president has already stated that they deserve the protections of the Geneva Convention, and they clearly deserve the protection of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which was adopted under president Raygun.


----------



## Annie (Feb 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> I agree that full US constitutional protections are not afforded to prisoners captured on the battlefield...but there are indeed some protections that are afforded to them by the constitution - those being any protections granted to them by any treaty signed by this government - which, according to the constitution, become the law of the land once signed.
> 
> The president has already stated that they deserve the protections of the Geneva Convention, and they clearly deserve the protection of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which was adopted under president Raygun.



I think GW once again did a disservice to the country, by caving on the GC, as enemy combatants are defined, as are those that qualify as terrorists/insurgents, ie. w/o uniform and hiding within civilian populations. 

The Raygun thing is silly.


----------



## maineman (Feb 19, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> The Raygun thing is silly.




the convention on torture signed by him is anything but.....


----------



## Annie (Feb 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> the convention on torture signed by him is anything but.....



It's still silly to use the name.


----------



## maineman (Feb 19, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> It's still silly to use the name.



goes back to my woodstock counterculture roots!

(which I had to keep pretty well hidden while at USNA!)


----------



## Annie (Feb 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> goes back to my woodstock counterculture roots!
> 
> (which I had to keep pretty well hidden while at USNA!)



Now there you go! Truth will out! Thanks for making me feel younger, I was in like jr. high for Woodstock!


----------



## maineman (Feb 19, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Now there you go! Truth will out! Thanks for making me feel younger, I was in like jr. high for Woodstock!



with your use of the word "like", I would have put you as being younger than that!  lol


----------



## Annie (Feb 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> with your use of the word "like", I would have put you as being younger than that!  lol


----------



## Redhots (Feb 19, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Foreign terrorists do not have US Constitutional rights when captured on the battlefield



Why?


----------



## maineman (Feb 19, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Foreign terrorists do not have US Constitutional rights when captured on the battlefield




_14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are *citizens* of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of *citizens* of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any *person* of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any *person* within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._

Please note that there are certain rights that flow to CITIZENS, and that certain other rights flow to PERSONS.  

Like it or not, foreign terrorists who are captured on the battlefiled and then fall under the jurisdiction of the United States are PERSONS is every sense of the word.


----------



## glockmail (Feb 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> _14th Amendment:
> 
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are *citizens* of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of *citizens* of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any *person* of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any *person* within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> ...



Like it or not, the 14th does not require the *Federal Government* to grant any *person *due process. Nice try through.


----------



## Bullypulpit (Feb 20, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Like it or not, the 14th does not require the *Federal Government* to grant any *person *due process. Nice try through.



However, Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution states:

<blockquote>The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.</blockquote>

There is no rebellion...there is no invasion...habeas corpus is fundamental to due process and applies to all under the jurisdiction of the federal government. And, it trumps any decision of the executive branch to the contrary.


----------



## maineman (Feb 20, 2007)

However, under "Substantive Due Process," the Supreme Court has developed a broader interpretation of the Clause, one that protects basic substantive rights, as well as the right to process. Substantive Due Process holds is that the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee not only that appropriate and just procedures (or "processes") be used whenever the government is punishing a *person* or otherwise taking away a *persons* life, freedom or property, but that these clauses also guarantee that a *persons* life, freedom and property cannot be taken without appropriate governmental justification, regardless of the procedures used to do the taking. In a sense, it makes the "Due Process" clause a "Due Substance" clause as well. 

http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/sdp.htm

*Substantive Due Process is afforded to "persons".... and not restricted to "citizens"*


----------



## glockmail (Feb 20, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> However, Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution states:
> 
> <blockquote>The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.</blockquote>
> 
> There is no rebellion...there is no invasion...habeas corpus is fundamental to due process and applies to all under the jurisdiction of the federal government. And, it trumps any decision of the executive branch to the contrary.



So?


----------



## glockmail (Feb 20, 2007)

maineman said:


> However, under "Substantive Due Process," the Supreme Court has developed a broader interpretation of the Clause...



Not the first time the Supremes have erred.


----------



## maineman (Feb 20, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Not the first time the Supremes have erred.



by definition, it is the law of the land, however.  And did I miss your legal credentials?


----------



## Bullypulpit (Feb 20, 2007)

It would appear that glockmail has run out of intellectual ammunition, but that is typical of the right wing, lunatic fringe of the GOP.


----------



## glockmail (Feb 20, 2007)

maineman said:


> by definition, it is the law of the land, however.  And did I miss your legal credentials?


Apparently you did. It's called common sense.


----------



## glockmail (Feb 20, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> It would appear that glockmail has run out of intellectual ammunition, but that is typical of the right wing, lunatic fringe of the GOP.


Go with that. 

This from a guy who has ignored several dozen direct questions from me.


----------



## Annie (Feb 20, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> However, Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution states:
> 
> <blockquote>The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.</blockquote>
> 
> There is no rebellion...there is no invasion...habeas corpus is fundamental to due process and applies to all under the jurisdiction of the federal government. And, it trumps any decision of the executive branch to the contrary.



Just on the habeas part:

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/02/circuit_court_a_1.html



> Tuesday, February 20, 2007
> Circuit Court orders end to detainee cases
> 
> Posted by Lyle Denniston at 10:05 AM
> ...


----------



## maineman (Feb 20, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Apparently you did. It's called common sense.



common sense beats nine distinguished careers in jurisprudence any day, eh clock?

what is the color of the fucking sky in YOUR world?


----------



## glockmail (Feb 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> common [sic] sense beats nine distinguished careers in jurisprudence any day, eh clock [sic]?
> 
> what [sic] is the color of the f[---]ing sky in YOUR world?



More delicious irony:  

1. Yes. From your own link; 





> Critics of Substantive Due Process claim that it is not the laws it strikes down, but rather the theory itself which is "unconstitutional." They claim that it is a pure usurpation of power by the Court since they Court cant use Judicial Review to strike down a state law unless the law is really contrary to the Constitution. Critics claim that "Substantive Due Process" is an oxymoron and that there is no way a reasonable person with a sixth grade grasp of grammar could read the "Due Process" Clause to assure anything but procedural rights. They say that when the Court uses judicial review to enforce these pseudo-Constitutional rights they are stealing the legitimate law-making power from the state legislatures.



2. Are claiming that the Supreme Court decision was unanimous? 'What is the color of the sky in YOUR world?'


----------



## maineman (Feb 21, 2007)

glockmail said:


> More delicious irony:
> 
> 1. Yes. From your own link;
> 
> 2. Are claiming that the Supreme Court decision was unanimous? 'What is the color of the sky in YOUR world?'



of course not...where would you get that idea?  The supremes have established substantive due process....and it is applicable to persons, not just citizens.... and until five of the nine decide that such an interpretation is NOT constitutional, by definition...it IS.  And I would suggest that the deliberations of nine learned jurists has more bearing than the modicum of common sense held by a moron like you with NO legal training.


----------



## glockmail (Feb 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> of course not...where would you get that idea?  The supremes have established substantive due process....and it is applicable to persons, not just citizens.... and until five of the nine decide that such an interpretation is NOT constitutional, by definition...it IS.  And I would suggest that the deliberations of nine learned jurists has more bearing than the modicum of common sense held by a moron like you with NO legal training.




As I said earlier, it's not the first time the SCOTUS erred.


----------



## maineman (Feb 21, 2007)

glockmail said:


> As I said earlier, it's not the first time the SCOTUS erred.



and I said...I find it incredibly arrogant and presumptuous for you to first state that the constitution does NOT provide any protections for non-citizens, and then when shown the error of your statement, claim that the supreme court doesn't know what they are talking about.

can't you ever admit when you screw up?


----------



## glockmail (Feb 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> and I said...I find it incredibly arrogant and presumptuous for you to first state that the constitution does NOT provide any protections for non-citizens, and then when shown the error of your statement, claim that the supreme court doesn't know what they are talking about.
> 
> can't you ever admit when you screw up?



Post 72. Answer, please.


----------



## maineman (Feb 21, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Post 72. Answer, please.



72 answered in 73.


----------



## glockmail (Feb 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> 72 answered in 73.


 Not quite: "...it is a pure usurpation of power by the Court ..."

I don't expect you to understand that.


----------



## maineman (Feb 21, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Not quite: "...it is a pure usurpation of power by the Court ..."
> 
> I don't expect you to understand that.




I understand that substantive due process has some critics.... and I understand you are one of them.

it must suck to you, then.... cuz substantive due process is the law of the land.


----------



## glockmail (Feb 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> I understand that substantive due process has some critics.... and I understand you are one of them.
> 
> it must suck to you, then.... cuz substantive due process is the law of the land.



Actually it's great being me: relatively young, handsome, well educated, with a beautiful, young, slender wife, athletic, smart and respectful children, gainfully self-employed, two homes in restricted communities, longevity in my bloodline, and a large, self-made portfolio. Not to mention an expert skier.


----------



## maineman (Feb 21, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Actually it's great being me: relatively young, handsome, well educated, with a beautiful, young, slender wife, athletic, smart and respectful children, gainfully self-employed, two homes in restricted communities, longevity in my bloodline, and a large, self-made portfolio. Not to mention an expert skier.



indeed ...it does seem that you own a lot of things - and people.

oh...and I just got off the phone with my 94 year old father.  we talked politics.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> indeed ...it does seem that you own a lot of things - and people.
> 
> ....


 Just like I pwn you, shitferbrains!


----------



## maineman (Mar 8, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Just like I pwn you, shitferbrains!



whatever blows your skirt up, glock... fantasy seems to be your strong suit.... but given what reality for you must be like, I am sure you've developed that out of necessity.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> whatever blows your skirt up, glock... fantasy seems to be your strong suit.... but given what reality for you must be like, I am sure you've developed that out of necessity.



When it come to going up skirts that is Bill Clinton's department


----------



## maineman (Mar 8, 2007)

rd stats rul said:


> When it come to going up skirts that is Bill Clinton's department



oh...Rudy and Newt - two of your golden boys - do a pretty good job of that as well.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> oh...Rudy and Newt - two of your golden boys - do a pretty good job of that as well.



Seems to me kibs are scared to death of Rudy. He is killing Hillary in the polls and that pisses off libs to no end


----------



## maineman (Mar 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Seems to me kibs are scared to death of Rudy. He is killing Hillary in the polls and that pisses off libs to no end




seems to me that for a conservative, you seem to think that you know what liberals think a lot of the time...

here's a clue: liberals know it's way too soon to tell anything.... liberals also know that whoever your party runs in '08 will have the war in Iraq hanging like an albatross around their necks- along with the entire republican congressional slate...but if you want to disenfranchise the religious right base and pick one of the aforementioned serial adulterers, that is certainly YOUR party's business and none of mine.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> seems to me that for a conservative, you seem to think that you know what liberals think a lot of the time...
> 
> here's a clue: liberals know it's way too soon to tell anything.... liberals also know that whoever your party runs in '08 will have the war in Iraq hanging like an albatross around their necks- along with the entire republican congressional slate...but if you want to disenfranchise the religious right base and pick one of the aforementioned serial adulterers, that is certainly YOUR party's business and none of mine.



I do know how libs think and I know what they will say before they say it

Libs are scared of Rudy because they know he will chew up and spit out Hillary or Obama

He did a hell of great job in NY and he drove libs nuts then and is doing it again now


----------



## Hamiltonian (Mar 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I do know how libs think and I know what they will say before they say it
> 
> Libs are scared of Rudy because they know he will chew up and spit out Hillary or Obama
> 
> He did a hell of great job in NY and he drove libs nuts then and is doing it again now


Yeah, and similarly conservatives hate Micheal Moore because he shows them what they really are, and pokes holes in all of their arguments, and they can't stand his superiority.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 8, 2007)

Hamiltonian said:


> Yeah, and similarly conservatives hate Micheal Moore because he shows them what they really are, and pokes holes in all of their arguments, and they can't stand his superiority.




Where is Mike these days? It is like he had a Farewell Tour like Bruse Springsteen did in 04


----------



## maineman (Mar 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I do know how libs think and I know what they will say before they say it



you really are quite the stud in your own mind, aren't you?  You do NOT know how libs think.... and that's a fact....

Libs are not worried about Rudy or anybody....we've got our own candidate to pick and we've got a wide array of choices.

your candidate will have Iraq around his neck...your party will have Iraq around its neck....

that's gotta suck.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> you really are quite the stud in your own mind, aren't you?  You do NOT know how libs think.... and that's a fact....
> 
> Libs are not worried about Rudy or anybody....we've got our own candidate to pick and we've got a wide array of choices.
> 
> ...



No what sucks is watching libs undermine the troops and the war. Libs have put their party ahead of the country.

Now even NBC reported how the terroists are laying low and hoping the Dems win in Dc thus giving them a win in Iraq

Very telling about your party and how they are viewed by our enemies


----------



## Annie (Mar 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> you really are quite the stud in your own mind, aren't you?  You do NOT know how libs think.... and that's a fact....
> 
> Libs are not worried about Rudy or anybody....we've got our own candidate to pick and we've got a wide array of choices.
> 
> ...


While I do not presume to think 'liberalese' I will say I'm unsure your take on Iraq is any better that RSR on liberals or either party on the last election, even now.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 8, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> While I do not presume to think 'liberalese' I will say I'm unsure your take on Iraq is any better that RSR on liberals or either party on the last election, even now.



Kathy, do not take my word for it. NBC is saying the same thing I am. I would hardly be a candidate for a job at that liberal network now would I?


----------



## Annie (Mar 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Kathy, do not take my word for it. NBC is saying the same thing I am. I would hardly be a candidate for a job at that liberal network now would I?



RSR, I'm just saying that neither you nor I can 'get into the mind' of a liberal. Heck, I can't get into yours and from what you post here, we agree most of the time.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 8, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> RSR, I'm just saying that neither you nor I can 'get into the mind' of a liberal. Heck, I can't get into yours and from what you post here, we agree most of the time.



Kathy, I drive my somewhat liberal girlfriend nuts, when I tell her what a lib is going to say before he/she says it. Guess what? I am right most of the time

Since I as in HS taking on my liberal teachers I have learned to think how liberals think

As Mike said in the Godfather "Learn to think like the people around you think and keep your friends close but your enemies closer"


----------



## maineman (Mar 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Kathy, do not take my word for it. NBC is saying the same thing I am. I would hardly be a candidate for a job at that liberal network now would I?



and because NBC says it, it is, therefore, a FACT?  It is SOOOO early in the cycle and so many folks are jockeying for position right now..... anybody trying to read tea leaves about anything at this stage is just trying to stir up ratings or sell papers.

And I don't give a shit what NBC says, I am not scared of Rudy.... and I would not ever be scared of Rudy if he WON!  A Pro-Choice, Pro-Gun Control, Pro-Gay Rights republican in the white house?  

But as I said, I still think that Iraq is going to be the albatross around your party's neck, and adding to your woes by nominating a serial adulterer pro-choice new yorker thus keeping the bible beaters in the heartlands away completely, is a choice I would love you to make..... win or lose.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> and because NBC says it, it is, therefore, a FACT?  It is SOOOO early in the cycle and so many folks are jockeying for position right now..... anybody trying to read tea leaves about anything at this stage is just trying to stir up ratings or sell papers.
> 
> And I don't give a shit what NBC says, I am not scared of Rudy.... and I would not ever be scared of Rudy if he WON!  A Pro-Choice, Pro-Gun Control, Pro-Gay Rights republican in the white house?
> 
> But as I said, I still think that Iraq is going to be the albatross around your party's neck, and adding to your woes by nominating a serial adulterer pro-choice new yorker thus keeping the bible beaters in the heartlands away completely, is a choice I would love you to make..... win or lose.



So you do not care that you are your party are doing what the terroists want you to do?

Spoken like a true patriotic lib

Oh you are very scared of Rudy. Watching the libs react to his numbers is a joy to watch.


----------



## maineman (Mar 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So you do not care that you are your party are doing what the terroists want you to do?
> 
> Spoken like a true patriotic lib
> 
> Oh you are very scared of Rudy. Watching the libs react to his numbers is a joy to watch.



look...two things:

1.  I am doing what I think is in the best interests of my country.  You disagree?  Fine.... just because we disagree does not give you the right to say that I am doing what the terrorists want me to do.  That is bullshit. The terrorists do not want an America where political debate flourishes.  Don't insult me, asshole.

2.Oh, I am not scared of Rudy.  You have no fucking idea what I am or am mot scared of so quit putting words in MY mouth.


----------



## Hamiltonian (Mar 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So you do not care that you are your party are doing what the terroists want you to do?
> 
> Spoken like a true patriotic lib
> 
> Oh you are very scared of Rudy. Watching the libs react to his numbers is a joy to watch.



I'm just wondering, since you're around high school age, that means you'll be eligible for the military soon.  If taking troops out of Iraq is emboldening the enemy, and putting troops in Iraq is defeating the enemy, do you plan on volunteering yourself to go fight in Iraq?  

And as for Micheal Moore, I have no idea where he is.  I try not to pay attention to what deceptive, reactionary pundits like Moore and Coulter are doing.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> look...two things:
> 
> 1.  I am doing what I think is in the best interests of my country.  You disagree?  Fine.... just because we disagree does not give you the right to say that I am doing what the terrorists want me to do.  That is bullshit. The terrorists do not want an America where political debate flourishes.  Don't insult me, asshole.
> 
> 2.Oh, I am not scared of Rudy.  You have no fucking idea what I am or am mot scared of so quit putting words in MY mouth.





As a former great military legend in your own mind, what military man would do what the enemy wants them to?

Here is the story form NBC

NBC: Iraqis Want U.S. to Stay and Insurgents Counting on Help from War Opponents
Posted by Brent Baker on March 5, 2007 - 21:25. 
Visiting Iraq, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams learned from Army officers that Iraqis want U.S. forces to remain in their country, from NBC News Baghdad reporter Richard Engel that Al-Sadr's insurgents have stepped down and are counting on pressure from anti-war opponents to provide them with victory, and from retired General and NBC News military analyst Wayne Downey that U.S. troops are proud of their mission. Traveling with Lieutenant General Ray Odierno for stories on his Monday newscast, Williams ran a clip of Army Colonel John Charlton proclaiming that Iraqis &#8220;do not want us to leave&#8221; and a soundbite from Army Lt. Colonel Charles Ferry who asserted: "The people here are very glad to see us.&#8221; Williams marveled: "You just said, 'They don't want us to leave.' That's the tenth time today I've heard that. I've got to go back to the States and do a newscast that every night has another politician or 12 of them saying, 'We have got to get out of that godforsaken place
http://newsbusters.org/node/11212

also, how the surge is working and the people of Iraq WANT the troops to stay. Hit the link and watch the video


Williams in Baghdad: New Pockets of Peace, Iraqis Don't Want to See Americans Go
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on March 6, 2007 - 11:14. 
 Talk about your inconvenient truth . . . 

Reporting from Baghdad this morning, and continuing a theme that MRC's Brent Baker spotted last evening, NBC Nightly News host Brian Williams let a cat out of the bag that could leave some serious scratch marks on MSM/DNC calls for stopping the surge and withdrawing US troops from Iraq. Williams said that US troops: 

"are also aware, especially in the outposts, that it's the Iraqi people who are very reluctant to see the Americans go, because in many cases that's what's keeping the peace in town."
View video here.

Earlier, and even on a day in which he reported on nine American troops having been killed in two separate explosions, Williams also suggested that the security situation in Iraq is improving in some aspects:

"Six [US troops killed] in Salahuddin province and three in Diyala province. But note what we're not reporting this morning. We are not reporting another car bomb or suicide bomber, IED has gone off in central Baghdad or in Sadr City, the usual locations where the sad drumbeat of news on morning's like this one normally comes from. This conflict is changing . . . We have a conflict where the tempo may be changing and we have pockets of new peace, but it is still a very dangerous war."

Whoops! Will Williams' observations make it out of NBC, into the MSM at large and onto Capitol Hill?


http://newsbusters.org/node/11217


----------



## red states rule (Mar 8, 2007)

Dick Cheney Outs Nancy Pelosi
Halliburton Dick Cheney recently made the wild accusation that by calling for the immediate redeployment of our troops away from the battlefield, Democratic leaders only encourage the so-called enemy. 

Lets pretend for a moment that hes right. Does he really need to blab the plan to every terrorist and his Uncle? In his rush to attack Nancy Pelosis patriotism, did Cheney even bother to consider that maybe emboldening the so-called terrorists with the illusion of victory is part of a cunning plan to lure them here, to our soil, where they can be easily apprehended and given the kind of emotional counseling they truly need? The idiot cons like to say that its better to fight them over there than over here, but in all honesty where would you rather Bushs silly war be waged  on the terrorists turf where they are familiar with the terrain, or here in the streets of America where our troops have the home field advantage?

The answer is obvious, but it wont happen until neocons like Cheney learn to keep their big yaps shut and let the Democrats do their business
http://blamebush.typepad.com/


----------



## Hamiltonian (Mar 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Dick Cheney Outs Nancy Pelosi
> Halliburton Dick Cheney recently made the wild accusation that by calling for the immediate redeployment of our troops away from the battlefield, Democratic leaders only encourage the so-called enemy.
> 
> Lets pretend for a moment that hes right. Does he really need to blab the plan to every terrorist and his Uncle? In his rush to attack Nancy Pelosis patriotism, did Cheney even bother to consider that maybe emboldening the so-called terrorists with the illusion of victory is part of a cunning plan to lure them here, to our soil, where they can be easily apprehended and given the kind of emotional counseling they truly need? The idiot cons like to say that its better to fight them over there than over here, but in all honesty where would you rather Bushs silly war be waged  on the terrorists turf where they are familiar with the terrain, or here in the streets of America where our troops have the home field advantage?
> ...



You have avoided my question.  I'm just wondering, since you're around high school age, that means you'll be eligible for the military soon. If taking troops out of Iraq is emboldening the enemy, and putting troops in Iraq is defeating the enemy, do you plan on volunteering yourself to go fight in Iraq?  Don't you want to go over to Iraq and fight the terrorists, so we don't have to fight them here?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 8, 2007)

Hamiltonian said:


> You have avoided my question.  I'm just wondering, since you're around high school age, that means you'll be eligible for the military soon. If taking troops out of Iraq is emboldening the enemy, and putting troops in Iraq is defeating the enemy, do you plan on volunteering yourself to go fight in Iraq?  Don't you want to go over to Iraq and fight the terrorists, so we don't have to fight them here?



How do you know I have not done my service?  With your attitude the troops would welcome you with open arms. Help them during target practice to sharpen their sharp shooting skills


----------



## Hamiltonian (Mar 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> How do you know I have not done my service?  With your attitude the troops would welcome you with open arms. Help them during target practice to sharpen their sharp shooting skills



Unlike you, I never presumed to know anything.  I just asked you a question, about doing your service.  How do you know what my attitudes are, or that I haven't done my service, or that a large part of my family chose the military?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 8, 2007)

Hamiltonian said:


> Unlike you, I never presumed to know anything.  I just asked you a question, about doing your service.  How do you know what my attitudes are, or that I haven't done my service, or that a large part of my family chose the military?





You recite the typical liberal talking points like you are on the fax list from the DNC


----------



## roadhouse158 (Mar 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> not so.
> 
> I have no desire to grant constitutional rights to terrorists.  I only want to make sure that we treat detainees in a way that we are willing to let our enemies of the future treat captured US troops.
> 
> ...




For one, I haven't read every message; but from what you quoted, he never called you a liberal. Being a Democrat doesn't make you liberal. And your view on how to treat detainees is comendable, however, that doesn't help. You can't reason with people that will strap a bomb to themselves to kill 50 people. It doesn't work. Your trying to use finite thinking with infinite thinking individuals. This is where I see that the Democrats and Liberals are gravely mistaken. Your thinking about the situation as YOU see it....Not them. We live in a different world than they do. A much different world. Yeah...Iraq isn't a problem at all for America...That's ridiculous. It's not right now. It will be in the future...If we leave now, you may see no reprocussions for about 5 years. But you will see them. Why do you think Iran is like it is now? I think the Carter Administration should have taught us that. Um...Let's turn our back on the Iraqi administration (Shah of Iran), and let a militant terrorist regime take over(Ayatollah)...See any similarities...The United States DID NOT create the problem in the Middle East. Everyone needs to accept that. Year after year, decade after decade, we are constantly having to deal with some problem in the Mid East. It's time to put an end to it now. It's not easy. It is necessary though...If you don't believe that....Then I suggest you don't have children. I would hate a new generation of Americans to put up with the crap we have had to endure in our generation. The Middle East has to change. If not...I think a Nuclear showdown is only a "when"....not a "maybe".


----------



## maineman (Mar 8, 2007)

For one, I haven't read every message; but from what you quoted, he never called you a liberal. 

*you're right...you haven't read every message*

Being a Democrat doesn't make you liberal. 

*I am both and proud of it*

And your view on how to treat detainees is comendable, however, that doesn't help.

*in your opinion.... which I do not happen to share* 

You can't reason with people that will strap a bomb to themselves to kill 50 people. It doesn't work. 

*no more than it would have worked on Timothy McVey*

Your trying to use finite thinking with infinite thinking individuals. This is where I see that the Democrats and Liberals are gravely mistaken. Your thinking about the situation as YOU see it....Not them. We live in a different world than they do. 

*We live in a very similar world to most of them.  Most muslims are peaceful, industrious family folks like you and me.*

A much different world. Yeah...Iraq isn't a problem at all for America...That's ridiculous. It's not right now. It will be in the future...If we leave now, you may see no reprocussions for about 5 years. But you will see them. Why do you think Iran is like it is now? I think the Carter Administration should have taught us that. Um...Let's turn our back on the Iraqi administration (Shah of Iran), and let a militant terrorist regime take over(Ayatollah)...See any similarities...

*Some...but the analogy is flawed by being overly simplistic.  To compare the current American puppet administration in Iraq with the dictatorshyip of the Shah of Iran is pointless.  The people doing battle with one another in Iraq are sunnis and shiites.  Whatever government finally "wins" in Iraq will not be a friend of ours and will align themselves with Iran regardless of what we do*

The United States DID NOT create the problem in the Middle East. 

*I have never said we did.  We also cannot SOLVE the problem in the middle east either*

Everyone needs to accept that. Year after year, decade after decade, we are constantly having to deal with some problem in the Mid East. 

*and your mistake is assuming that every problem in the middle east is just the same as the last one and that they all can be "solved" by some American imposed "solution"*

It's time to put an end to it now. It's not easy. 

*and it is not anywhere near as simplistic and black/white..good/bad as you would have it*

It is necessary though...If you don't believe that....Then I suggest you don't have children.

*I already have three* 

I would hate a new generation of Americans to put up with the crap we have had to endure in our generation. The Middle East has to change. If not...I think a Nuclear showdown is only a "when"....not a "maybe"

*And I believe that if American wants to get muslims to want to stop killing us and our primary method for doing so is to use military might to kill muslims, then we had better be ready to kill all of them.  *


----------



## Annie (Mar 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> For one, I haven't read every message; but from what you quoted, he never called you a liberal. *you're right...you haven't read every message*Being a Democrat doesn't make you liberal. And your view on how to treat detainees is comendable, however, that doesn't help. You can't reason with people that will strap a bomb to themselves to kill 50 people. It doesn't work. Your trying to use finite thinking with infinite thinking individuals. This is where I see that the Democrats and Liberals are gravely mistaken. Your thinking about the situation as YOU see it....Not them. We live in a different world than they do. *We live in a very similar world to most of them.  Most muslims are peaceful, industrious family folks like you and me.*A much different world. Yeah...Iraq isn't a problem at all for America...That's ridiculous. It's not right now. It will be in the future...If we leave now, you may see no reprocussions for about 5 years. But you will see them. Why do you think Iran is like it is now? I think the Carter Administration should have taught us that. Um...Let's turn our back on the Iraqi administration (Shah of Iran), and let a militant terrorist regime take over(Ayatollah)...See any similarities...*Some...but the analogy is flawed by being overly simplistic.  To compare the current American puppet administration in Iraq with the dictatorshyip of the Shah of Iran is pointless.  The people doing battle with one another in Iraq are sunnis and shiites.  Whatever government finally "wins" in Iraq will not be a friend of ours and will align themselves with Iran regardless of what we do*The United States DID NOT create the problem in the Middle East. *I have never said we did.  We also cannot SOLVE the problem in the middle east either*Everyone needs to accept that. Year after year, decade after decade, we are constantly having to deal with some problem in the Mid East. *and your mistake is assuming that every problem in the middle east is just the same as the last one and that they all can be "solved" by some American imposed "solution"*It's time to put an end to it now. It's not easy. *and it is not anywhere near as simplistic and black/white..good/bad as you would have it*It is necessary though...If you don't believe that....Then I suggest you don't have children.*I already have three* I would hate a new generation of Americans to put up with the crap we have had to endure in our generation. The Middle East has to change. If not...I think a Nuclear showdown is only a "when"....not a "maybe"*And I believe that if American wants to get muslims to want to stop killing us and our primary method for doing so is to use military might to kill muslims, then we had better be ready to kill all of them.  *



This is very hard to read. Did you mean to post it like this?


----------



## maineman (Mar 8, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> This is very hard to read. Did you mean to post it like this?


It is late.... I woke up at 3:30AM this morning in Rome (which was really 9:30PM last night) and am on my way to bed..... form took a back seat to content


----------



## Annie (Mar 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> It is late.... I woke up at 3AM this morning in Rome (which was really 9PM last night) and am on my way to bed..... form took a back seat to content



Well I can no longer 'fix.' You might wish to tomorrow afternoon, when you get your feet. I'm glad you had such a great trip and returned safe and sound. Well, safe anyways.


----------



## Hamiltonian (Mar 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You recite the typical liberal talking points like you are on the fax list from the DNC



You don't know how ridiculous you look.  You just posted two cut and paste articles of talking points on the last page.  Do you think we all have really short memories or something?  I haven't posted a single cut and paste job like you do all the time.  Thanks for the laugh .

Do you also think that people can't see you've been evading the original question?  I'm just wondering, since you're around high school age, that means you'll be eligible for the military soon. If taking troops out of Iraq is emboldening the enemy, and putting troops in Iraq is defeating the enemy, do you plan on volunteering yourself to go fight in Iraq?  Is there some reason that this question is particularly hard for you to answer?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

Hamiltonian said:


> You don't know how ridiculous you look.  You just posted two cut and paste articles of talking points on the last page.  Do you think we all have really short memories or something?  I haven't posted a single cut and paste job like you do all the time.  Thanks for the laugh .
> 
> Do you also think that people can't see you've been evading the original question?  I'm just wondering, since you're around high school age, that means you'll be eligible for the military soon. If taking troops out of Iraq is emboldening the enemy, and putting troops in Iraq is defeating the enemy, do you plan on volunteering yourself to go fight in Iraq?  Is there some reason that this question is particularly hard for you to answer?




You are showing your liberal superiorty complex. By reading posts on a message board you know my age and background.

To libs, if you have not served in the military you cannot comment on the war. Nice ploy to duck the issues

Bottom line is the libs and Defeatocrats are doing exactly what the terrorists in Iraq want them to do and it does not seem to bother you


----------



## Hamiltonian (Mar 9, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You are showing your liberal superiorty complex. By reading posts on a message board you know my age and background.



No, since you said "I as in high school" I took that as "am" instead of "was."  



> To libs, if you have not served in the military you cannot comment on the war. Nice ploy to duck the issues
> 
> Bottom line is the libs and Defeatocrats are doing exactly what the terrorists in Iraq want them to do and it does not seem to bother you



I never said anything of the sort.  I'm just wondering, if you think that we need more troops in Iraq, and you are of age, why you don't want to serve for our country?  Why is that question so hard for you to answer?  Are you embarrassed by your answer?  I never claimed you couldn't comment on anything.  

So now you can see in the mind of terrorists too eh?  Were your teachers or girlfriend a terrorist?  Are a lot of your friends terrorists, since you keep your friends close and enemies closer?  Have you ever lived in the middle east?  Perhaps you should ask before every action, "is this good for the USA" rather than "is this what the terrorists would want?"


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

Hamiltonian said:


> No, since you said "I as in high school" I took that as "am" instead of "was."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All you need to know about terrorists and the peaceful followers of Islam


----------



## glockmail (Mar 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> It is late.... I woke up at 3:30AM this morning in Rome (which was really 9:30PM last night) and am on my way to bed..... form took a back seat to content


 When you wake up, have a nice 4 egg omlet, a slab of bacon and extra SALT.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

glockmail said:


> When you wake up, have a nice 4 egg omlet, a slab of bacon and extra SALT.



and do not forget the sausage


----------



## glockmail (Mar 9, 2007)

red states rule said:


> and do not forget the sausage


 With extra nitrates. Oh, and SALT.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

glockmail said:


> With extra nitrates. Oh, and SALT.



Toss a tick steak in for good measure - with lots of butter


----------



## glockmail (Mar 9, 2007)

How about a lard sandwhich? On Wonder Bread, with mayonaise. Oh, and plenty of SALT.


----------



## Hamiltonian (Mar 9, 2007)

red states rule said:


> All you need to know about terrorists and the peaceful followers of Islam



You're still avoiding the question.  It can't be that hard to answer a question.  What, do you think that by not joining the army you are emboldening the terrorists?


----------



## roadhouse158 (Mar 9, 2007)

> We live in a very similar world to most of them. Most muslims are peaceful, industrious family folks like you and me.



And these same Muslims are the exact ones that we are not fighting against. These are the Muslims that we are fighting with.


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2007)

roadhouse158 said:


> And these same Muslims are the exact ones that we are not fighting against. These are the Muslims that we are fighting with.



the problem, of course, is that we are the ones who are fighting, and the peaceful muslims are trying to avoid the fight altogether.


----------



## José (Mar 9, 2007)

Peaceful, secular arabs are too enraged by the racial dictatorship created by the West in Palestine 60 years ago and now a client state of the US to give a rat's ass about american skyscrappers being knocked down by fundamentalists.

America is too radioactive in the Middle East to get any support from the vast majority of secular arabs.

You can't preach democracy for arabs living in Iraq and jewish racism for arabs living in Palestine and still expect to be taken seriously in the Middle East.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

José;534778 said:
			
		

> Peaceful, secular arabs are too enraged by the racial dictatorship created by the West in Palestine 60 years ago and now a client state of the US to give a rat's ass about american skyscrappers being knocked down by fundamentalists.
> 
> America is too radioactive in the Middle East to get any support from the vast majority of secular arabs.
> 
> You can't preach democracy for arabs living in Iraq and jewish racism for arabs living in Palestine and still expect to be taken seriously in the Middle East.



No, the peaceful Muslims are scared to speak out because they will be murdered by the Muslim terrorists


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2007)

red states rule said:


> No, the peaceful Muslims are scared to speak out because they will be murdered by the Muslim terrorists



peaceful muslims are simultaneously frightened by radical islamists and repulsed by American imperialistic hegemony.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> peaceful muslims are simultaneously frightened by radical islamists and repulsed by American imperialistic hegemony.



I figured you would slander America - nothing new. For a correct view of Muslims and Islam, look how women are treated. I would have thought the libs would be speaking out more about this.


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I figured you would slander America - nothing new. For a correct view of Muslims and Islam, look how women are treated. I would have thought the libs would be speaking out more about this.



for a correct view on Iraq and women, consider that women had a higher rate of literacy and of job equality in pre-invasion Iraq than anywhere in the middle east.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> for a correct view on Iraq and women, consider that women had a higher rate of literacy and of job equality in pre-invasion Iraq than anywhere in the middle east.



Oh really? I bet the women of Iraq loved the idea of being kidnapped off the streets by Saddam's sons and raped. If they (or their family protested) they would be killed. As far as the rest of  the peaceful Muslim areas........


Women and Islam
By Cathy Young  |  October 23, 2006

BRITAIN HAS been in turmoil over veils in recent days, after a school in Yorkshire suspended a Muslim teacher's assistant for wearing ``niqab" -- a form of the traditional veil that leaves only a slit for the eyes. Further stoking the flames, House of Commons leader Jack Straw revealed that in meetings with constituents, he had asked niqab-wearing women to remove their veils for better face-to-face interaction

The niqab controversy has focused on thorny questions of cultural integration and religious tolerance in Europe. However, it is also a debate about women and Islam.

For Westerners, the veil has long been a symbol of the oppression of women in the Islamic world. Today, quite a few Muslims regard it as a symbol of cultural and religious self-assertion and reject the idea that Muslim women are downtrodden. In our multicultural age, many liberals are reluctant to criticize the subjugation of women in Muslim countries and Muslim immigrant communities, fearful of promoting the notion of Western superiority. At the other extreme, some critics have used the plight of Muslim women to suggest that Islam is inherently evil and even to bash Muslims.

Recently, these tensions turned into a nasty academic controversy in the United States, as the Chronicle of Higher Education has reported. In June, Hamid Dabashi, an Iranian-born professor of Iranian studies and comparative literature at Columbia University, published an article in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram attacking Azar Nafisi, Iranian émigré and author of the 2003 best seller ``Reading Lolita In Tehran." Nafisi's memoir is a harsh portrait of life in Iran after the Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic revolution, focusing in particular on the mistreatment of women, who were stripped of their former rights and harshly punished for violating strict religious codes of dress and behavior.

Complaining that Nafisi's writings demonize Iran, Dabashi branded her a ``native informer and colonial agent for American imperialism." In a subsequent interview, he compared her to Lynndie England, the US soldier convicted of abusing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

While Dabashi's rhetoric is extreme, it is not unique. Even in academic feminist groups on the Internet, criticisms of the patriarchal oppression of women in Muslim countries are often met with hostility unless accompanied by disclaimers that American women too are oppressed.

A more thoughtful examination of Islam and women's rights was offered earlier this month at a symposium at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. The keynote speaker, Syrian-American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan, an outspoken critic of Islam, described an ``honor killing" of a young Middle Eastern woman that occurred with the help of her mother. In a later exchange, another participant, Libyan journalist Sawsan Hanish, argued that it was unfair to single out Muslim societies, since women suffer violence and sexual abuse in every society including the United States. Sultan pointed out a major difference: In many Muslim cultures , such violence and abuse are accepted and legalized.

Yet the symposium's moderator, scholar Michael Ledeen, rejected Sultan's assertion that Islam is irredeemably anti-woman. He noted that the idea that some religions cannot be reformed runs counter to the history of religions. Several panelists spoke of Muslim feminists' efforts to reform Islam and separate its spiritual message from the human patriarchal baggage. Some of these reformers look for a lost female-friendly legacy in early Islam; others argue that everything in the Koran that runs counter to the modern understanding of human rights and equality should be revised or rejected. These feminists have an uphill battle to fight, and they deserve all the support they can get.

Meanwhile, using the language of tolerance to justify oppressive practices is a grotesque perversion of liberalism. The veiling debate is a case in point. No amount of rhetorical sleight of hand can disguise the fact that the full-face veil makes women, literally, faceless. Some Muslim women in the West may choose this garb (which is not mandated in the Koran), but their explanations often reveal an internalized misogynistic view of women as creatures whose very existence is a sexual provocation to men. What's more, their choice helps legitimize a custom that is imposed on millions of women around the world who have no choice.

Perhaps, as some say, women are the key to Islam's modernization. The West cannot impose its own solutions from the outside -- but, at the very least, it can honestly confront the problem.

Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine. Her column appears regularly in the Globe.


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2007)

the fact is:  women's literacy and job-pay equity in Iraq prior to our invasion was higher than anywhere else in the Islamic world.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> the fact is:  women's literacy and job-pay equity in Iraq prior to our invasion was higher than anywhere else in the Islamic world.



if they lived long enough to collect. Of course you supported the rapist Clinton, why not support the rapists in Saddam's family?


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2007)

and your article - again - has only tangential relevance.  It has nothing to do with Iraq whatsoever.

You really are pathetic in your apparent pathological fear of writing your own thoughts....or perhaps it really is nothing more than an inability on your part to do so.


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2007)

red states rule said:


> if they lived long enough to collect. Of course you supported the rapist Clinton, why not support the rapists in Saddam's family?




do you have any data to support your assertion that the mortality rate for women in Iraq was statistically higher than any other country in the region?

I didn't think so.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> and your article - again - has only tangential relevance.  It has nothing to do with Iraq whatsoever.
> 
> You really are pathetic in your apparent pathological fear of writing your own thoughts....or perhaps it really is nothing more than an inability on your part to do so.



It is always great to see the libs speaking out against the mistreatment of people. Oh, the women are not in America so that is why you do not give a shit. What fun is it if you can't bash America?


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It is always great to see the libs speaking out against the mistreatment of people. Oh, the women are not in America so that is why you do not give a shit. What fun is it if you can't bash America?



where have I ever not condemned the mistreatment of people?

find a quote from me that would support such a bizarre assertion on your part.

I'll wait.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> where have I ever not condemned the mistreatment of people?
> 
> find a quote from me that would support such a bizarre assertion on your part.
> 
> I'll wait.



You were saying how good women had it in Iraq, 

Of course there are more examples of how the oh so peaceful Muslims treat their women

The Fight for Muslim Women
A feisty memoir from a controversial champion of female rights.

Reviewed by Anne Applebaum
Sunday, February 4, 2007; Page BW05

INFIDEL

By Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I am Ayaan, the daughter of Hirsi, the son of Magan."

In the first scene of Infidel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a child of 5, sitting on a grass mat. Her grandmother is teaching her to recite the names of her ancestors, as all Somali children must learn to do. "Get it right," her grandmother warns. "They are your bloodline. . . . If you dishonor them you will be forsaken. You will be nothing. You will lead a wretched life and die alone."

Thus begins the extraordinary story of a woman born into a family of desert nomads, circumcised as a child, educated by radical imams in Kenya and Saudi Arabia, taught to believe that if she uncovered her hair, terrible tragedies would ensue. It's a story that, with a few different twists, really could have led to a wretched life and a lonely death, as her grandmother warned. But instead, Hirsi Ali escaped -- and transformed herself into an internationally renowned spokeswoman for the rights of Muslim women.

The break began when she slipped away from her family on her way to a forced marriage in Canada and talked her way into political asylum in Holland, using a story she herself calls "an invention." Soon after arriving, she removed her head scarf to see if God would strike her dead. He did not. Nor were there divine consequences when, defying her ancestors, she donned blue jeans, rode a bicycle, enrolled in university, became a Dutch citizen, began to speak publicly about the mistreatment of Muslim women in Holland and won election to the Dutch parliament.

But tragedy followed fame. In 2004, Hirsi Ali helped a Dutch director, Theo van Gogh, make a controversial film, "Submission," about Muslim women suffering from forced marriages and wife beating. Van Gogh was murdered by an angry Muslim radical in response, and Hirsi Ali went into hiding. The press began to explore her past, discovering the "inventions" that she had used to get her refugee status. The Dutch threatened to revoke her citizenship; the American Enterprise Institute offered her a job in Washington. And thus she came to be among us.

Even the bare facts of this unusual life would make fascinating reading. But this book is something more than an ordinary autobiography: In the tradition of Frederick Douglass or even John Stuart Mill, Infidel describes a unique intellectual journey, from the tribal customs of Hirsi Ali's Somali childhood, through the harsh fundamentalism of Saudi Arabia and into the contemporary West. Along the way, Hirsi Ali displays what surely must be her greatest gift: the talent for recalling, describing and honestly analyzing the precise state of her feelings at each stage of that journey.

She describes how she felt as a teenager, voluntarily wearing a hijab, a black cloak that hid her body: "It sent out a message of superiority: I was the one true Muslim. All those other little girls with their little white headscarves were children, hypocrites." She writes of meeting her husband-to-be's family: "I concentrated on behaving properly: Speaking softly, being polite, avoiding shame to my parents. I felt empty."

She also describes how horrified she felt as an adult after Sept. 11, 2001, reaching for the Koran to find out whether some of Osama bin Laden's more blood-curdling statements -- "when you meet the unbelievers, strike them in the neck" -- were direct quotations. "I hated to do it," she wrote, "because I knew that I would find bin Laden's quotations in there." And there were consequences: "The little shutter at the back of my mind, where I pushed all my dissonant thoughts, snapped open after the 9/11 attacks, and it refused to close again. I found myself thinking that the Quran is not a holy document. It is a historical record, written by humans. . . . And it is a very tribal and Arab version of events. It spreads a culture that is brutal, bigoted, fixated on controlling women, and harsh in war."

That moment led Hirsi Ali to her most profound conclusion: that the mistreatment of women is not an incidental problem in the Muslim world, a side issue that can be dealt with once the more important political problems are out of the way. Rather, she believes that the enslavement of women lies at the heart of all of the most fanatical interpretations of Islam, creating "a culture that generates more backwardness with every generation."

Ultimately, it led to her most controversial conclusion too: that Islam is in a period of transition, that the religion as it is currently practiced is often incompatible with modernity and democracy and must radically transform itself in order to become so. "We in the West," she writes, "would be wrong to prolong the pain of that transition unnecessarily, by elevating cultures full of bigotry and hatred toward women to the stature of respectable alternative ways of life." That sentiment, when first expressed in Holland, infuriated not only Hirsi Ali's compatriots but also Dutch intellectuals uneasy about criticizing the immigrants in their midst, particularly because both Hirsi Ali and Theo van Gogh went further than the usual criticism of radical, political Islam: Both believed that even "ordinary" forms of Islam, such as those practiced in Hirsi Ali's Somalia, contain elements of discrimination against women that should not be tolerated in the West. Thanks to this belief in female equality, Hirsi Ali now requires permanent bodyguards. But having "moved from the world of faith to the world of reason," Hirsi Ali now says she cannot go back.

Still, she describes herself as lucky: "How many girls born in Digfeer Hospital in Mogadishu in November 1969 are even alive today?" she asks rhetorically. "And how many have a real voice?" To that, it's worth adding another question: How many women with Hirsi Ali's experience of radical Islam have emerged to tell their stories? And how many can do so with such clarity and insight? Infidel is a unique book, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a unique writer, and both deserve to go far. &#183;

Anne Applebaum is a columnist for

The Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020102307.html


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2007)

oddly enough. your article has nothing to do with Iraq....

can you EVER argue a point with your own words instead of hiding behind words of others that clearly do not deal with the issue at hand?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> oddly enough. your article has nothing to do with Iraq....
> 
> can you EVER argue a point with your own words instead of hiding behind words of others that clearly do not deal with the issue at hand?



Well, since you said how great life was for women in Iraq (as long they were still breathing) I was pointing out how peaceful Muslms treat their own


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Well, since you said how great life was for women in Iraq (as long they were still breathing) I was pointing out how peaceful Muslms treat their own



I pointed out that women in pre-invasion Iraq had higher literacy and higher wage equity than other women in the Islamic world.  Do you care to comment on that FACT, or just spew bullshit and tapdance around it?

I'll wait.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> I pointed out that women in pre-invasion Iraq had higher literacy and higher wage equity than other women in the Islamic world.  Do you care to comment on that FACT, or just spew bullshit and tapdance around it?
> 
> I'll wait.



Iraqi Women Speak Out about Life under Saddam's Dictatorship, October 4, 2002

(National Press Club audience hears accounts of Saddams persecution)

By Lindsey Brooks Washington File Staff Writer

Washington -- In 1991, Sabria Mahdi Naama and her children found themselves fleeing for their lives from their native land, Iraq. Her husband, Abbas Kareem Naama, had been gone for months and she had no idea if he was alive or dead.

Naama brought a National Press Club audience to tears October 4 as she recounted her family's arduous journey to freedom after months of hiding from Saddam Hussein's security forces.

The mother of five was part of a panel called, "The Unheard Voices of Iraqi Women," sponsored by the International Alliance for Justice, a network of 275 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from over 120 countries. The group sought to put a spotlight on human rights violations that continue to be a hallmark of Saddam's rule in Iraq.

Naama and her husband, a former general in the Iraqi army, are Shiites, a Muslim majority in Iraq. After the Gulf War, General Naama participated in an uprising against Saddam Hussein in the southern part of the country, along with a few other senior military officials. Eventually, her husband was forced to flee their village to save his life, she said.

For months, Naama said she feared her husband had been executed by Saddam's regime. But, an even greater dread was that if he were alive, the Iraqi dictator would order the arrest of her children as a means to lure the general from hiding. Finally, Naama herself was forced to flee with her children.

"I bitterly left my homeland when it was absolutely unsafe for my kids and my family to stay even one day more," Naama said. She spoke in Arabic, and her daughter, Ersa, translated into English.

"Our guilt was that we protested the destruction of our life and the death of two members of our family ... We participated in the uprising to defend our life and our kids. When at last we arrived at the Rafha camp in the Saudi desert we were ghosts in the shape of human bodies," Naama said. "My kids were at the edge of death."

General Naama had been able to escape to the same camp and their family was reunited. After living in the desert camp for two years, they were moved to San Diego, California with a group of refugees.

Along with Naama, six other women from various regional, ethnic and religious backgrounds in Iraq shared their experiences living under Saddam's dictatorship.

Safia Al Souhail, the advocacy director for the Middle East and Islamic world at the International Alliance for Justice, said, "We, the women of Iraq, for the last three decades have suffered under an extraordinarily brutal regime, everybody in this panel has lost loved ones in various wars launched by Saddamin the most aggressive and inhuman ways possible."

Al Souhail said Saddam's operatives in Beirut assassinated her father, Sheik Taleb Al Souhail, chief of the Bani Tamim tribe in Iraq, in 1994.

"We are here because of our common wounds and common aspirations, which is to see our country free from the repression of Saddam Hussein and his regime. Iraq under Saddam's regime has become a land of hopelessness, sadness, and fear. A country where people are ethnically cleansed ... rape is systematic . . . congenital malformation, birth defects, infertility, cancer and various disorders are the results of Saddam's gassing of his own people ... the killing and torturing of husbands in front of their wives and children occurs ... Iraq under Saddam has become a hell and a museum of crimes," Al Souhail said.

Nidal Shaikh Shallal related some of the ways Iraqi women have suffered at the hands of Saddam.

"The Iraqi woman has lost her loved ones -- husbands, brothers and fathers," Shallal said. "The Iraqi woman has endured torture, murder, confinement, execution, and banishment, just like others in Iraqi society at the hands of Saddam Hussein's criminal gang."

"The heads of many women have been publicly cut off in the streets under the pretext of being liars, while in fact they mostly belonged to families opposing the Iraqi regime. Women, especially dissident women, have been raped by members of Saddam Hussein's gang ... The wives of dissidents have been either killed or tortured in front of their husbands in order to obtain confessions from their husbands . . . Women have been kidnapped as they walk in the streets by members of the gangs of Uday and Qusay [Saddams sons] and then raped," Shallal said.

On a personal level, Shallal and her husband had their possessions confiscated and were expelled from their home by the Iraqi regime. She was fired from her government job and her husband was jailed for four months and tortured by Iraqi military intelligence.

Shallal's brother was arrested in 1980 and her family still does not know what happened to him. Several of her cousins have been executed and as many as 882 male relatives and tribal members, the Jibour tribe, have been arrested and their fates are unknown, she said.

The panel at the news conference also included four Kurdish activists: Zakia Ismail Hakki, a lawyer and former president of the Kurdish Women's Foundation who became the first woman judge in Iraq; Hetau Ibrahim Ahmad; Paiman Halmat; and Dr. Katrin Michael. The four spoke of Saddam's persecution of the Kurdish population.

Halmat, a teacher, said, "It has been the Iraqi regime's policy to change the demography of Iraq, by eradicating the Kurdish population from areas that are deemed important in the north of the country. The regime has done this through forced deportation, arbitrary arrests and systematic torture."

Michael said, "In 1987 I was in the Bahdinan region when the government bombed us with chemical weapons. I am still suffering from that bombing to this day."

Michael said she has a vision of an Iraq without Saddam that would have a developed civil society that enshrines equal rights under the law; equal wages for men and women; and protection for women against violence and rape.

The women who spoke out at the National Press Club hope that their stories of life under Saddam will help the rest of world understand the suffering that Saddams regime has imposed on Iraqis. They also hope that the rest of the world will understand their yearning for a different, and much better, future for all Iraqis.

http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_10/alia/a2100906.htm


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2007)

I post facts:  women's literacy in pre-invasion Iraq was higher than anywhere else in the Islamic world...women's pay equity was higher in pre-invasion Iraq than anywhere else in the Islamic world...

your reply:  anecdotes from seven women. 


impressive.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> I post facts:  women's literacy in pre-invasion Iraq was higher than anywhere else in the Islamic world...women's pay equity was higher in pre-invasion Iraq than anywhere else in the Islamic world...
> 
> your reply:  anecdotes from seven women.
> 
> ...



Hey shit for brains, the article was about a women and her family in Iraq. You are such a waste of human flesh


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Hey shit for brains, the article was about a women and her family in Iraq. You are such a waste of human flesh



the articled was anecdotal testimony from six women.  that does not change the fact that women's literacy and pay equity was higher in pre-invasion Iraq than elsewhere in the Islamic world.  what part of "anecdote" do you not understand?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> the articled was anecdotal testimony from six women.  that does not change the fact that women's literacy and pay equity was higher in pre-invasion Iraq than elsewhere in the Islamic world.  what part of "anecdote" do you not understand?



nly to a liberal ass wipe is it OK to slaughter women as long as they can read and make a decent wage


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2007)

are you suggesting that women were significantly less safe in Iraq than they were in other islamic countries?  Or are you denying the fact that they had greater socioeconomic opportunities in Iraq than elsewhere in the Islamic world?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you suggesting that women were significantly less safe in Iraq than they were in other islamic countries?  Or are you denying the fact that they had greater socioeconomic opportunities in Iraq than elsewhere in the Islamic world?



They were equally mistreated. Yet, libs are silent on how Muslims treat them like property


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2007)

equally mistreated, yet in Iraq they had greater socioeconomic opportunities?

are we in agreement on that?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> equally mistreated, yet in Iraq they had greater socioeconomic opportunities?
> 
> are we in agreement on that?



The only advantage the women has in Iraq was the had a greater chance of being kidnapped, enslaved, raped, and murdered then they had in other Middle Eastern countries


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2007)

red states rule said:


> The only advantage the women has in Iraq was the had a greater chance of being kidnapped, enslaved, raped, and murdered then they had in other Middle Eastern countries



that is factually incorrect.  Women had a better chance of earning a competitive wage in Iraq and were better educated than their peers in other islamic countries.  

Now, if you have any solid statistics that show that the mortality rate of women from violence was greater in Iraq than in other countries in the region, I am sure you would have shown it by now.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> that is factually incorrect.  Women had a better chance of earning a competitive wage in Iraq and were better educated than their peers in other islamic countries.
> 
> Now, if you have any solid statistics that show that the mortality rate of women from violence was greater in Iraq than in other countries in the region, I am sure you would have shown it by now.



Leave it to the mootbat left to give a pass to a murderous dictator like Saddam so they can stay in their world of hate against their President and their country


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Leave it to the mootbat left to give a pass to a murderous dictator like Saddam so they can stay in their world of hate against their President and their country




I have never "given a pass" to Saddam.  The facts speak for themselves.....

something you seem incapable of doing


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> I have never "given a pass" to Saddam.  The facts speak for themselves.....
> 
> something you seem incapable of doing



You have given him a pass, and I would not be surprised if you cried when he was hanged


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You have given him a pass, and I would not be surprised if you cried when he was hanged



I have never given Saddam a pass on anything.  why must you lie like that?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> I have never given Saddam a pass on anything.  why must you lie like that?



You have said how good women had it in Iraq under his iron fist - that is giving him a pass


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You have said how good women had it in Iraq under his iron fist - that is giving him a pass



I have stated the FACT that women were better educated in pre-invasion Iraq than in other Islamic countries...I have stated that women had better pay equity in the workplace in pre-invasion Iraq than in other Islamic countries.  Are you going to dispute those facts or are you just gonna spew bullshit?  The facts don't give Saddam a pass on anything...they are just facts.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> I have stated the FACT that women were better educated in pre-invasion Iraq than in other Islamic countries...I have stated that women had better pay equity in the workplace in pre-invasion Iraq than in other Islamic countries.  Are you going to dispute those facts or are you just gonna spew bullshit?  The facts don't give Saddam a pass on anything...they are just facts.



Women in Nazi Germany had it pretty good also, until the SS came by to take them off to concentration camps


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Women in Nazi Germany had it pretty good also, until the SS came by to take them off to concentration camps



are you suggesting that women, by nature of their gender alone, were targets of nazi descrimination?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you suggesting that women, by nature of their gender alone, were targets of nazi descrimination?



As in Iraq and in Germany, everyone was a target. But to you, Saddam was not the problem - the US was


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2007)

red states rule said:


> As in Iraq and in Germany, everyone was a target. But to you, Saddam was not the problem - the US was



you are saying that in Nazi Germany, Aryan men and women were targets?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> you are saying that in Nazi Germany, Aryan men and women were targets?



Many Germans were murdered - so were many in Saddam's own family


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Many Germans were murdered - so were many in Saddam's own family



you are not making any sense..... 

you obviously cannot deny the fact that women had a higher literacy rate in Iraq than elsewhere in the middle east nor that they had a higher pay equity in the workforce.

Are you suggesting that women were victims of violence in Iraq in some significantly greater rate than in the rest of the arab and islamic world?  If so, please site your statistics to back up such an assertion.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> you are not making any sense.....
> 
> you obviously cannot deny the fact that women had a higher literacy rate in Iraq than elsewhere in the middle east nor that they had a higher pay equity in the workforce.
> 
> Are you suggesting that women were victims of violence in Iraq in some significantly greater rate than in the rest of the arab and islamic world?  If so, please site your statistics to back up such an assertion.



Keep defending America's enemies and being a traitor. You are part of the YELLOW DOG Dems


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Keep defending America's enemies and being a traitor. You are part of the YELLOW DOG Dems



I am defending no one... can you refute the facts that I have stated, yes or no?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am defending no one... can you refute the facts that I have stated, yes or no?



I have. You are to big an idiot to understand them


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

« Dont Overlook Sam BrownbackNew Hampshire, Welcome To The Nanny State 2 »Murthas Slow Bleed Stumbles Out Of The Gate
 This is from washingtonpost.com:

Murtha Stumbles on Iraq Funding Curbs

Democrats Were Ill-Prepared for Unplanned Disclosure, Republican Attacks

By Jonathan Weisman and Lyndsey Layton

Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, February 25, 2007; Page A05 

The plan was bold: By tying President Bushs $100 billion war request to strict standards of troop safety and readiness, Democrats believed they could grab hold of Iraq war policy while forcing Republicans to defend sending troops into battle without the necessary training or equipment.

But a botched launch by the plans author, Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), has united Republicans and divided Democrats, sending the latter back to the drawing board just a week before scheduled legislative action, a score of House Democratic lawmakers said last week.

If this is going to be legislation thats crafted in such a way that holds back resources from our troops, that is a non-starter, an absolute non-starter, declared Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah), a leader of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats.

Murthas credentials as a Marine combat veteran, a critic of the war and close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) were supposed to make him an unassailable spokesman for Democratic war policy. Instead, he has become a lightning rod for criticism from Republicans and members of his own party.

Freshman Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired Navy admiral who was propelled into politics by the Iraq war, said Murtha could still salvage elements of his strategy, but Sestak, an outspoken war opponent, is a bit wary of a proposal that would influence military operations.

I was recently in the military, and I have to speak from that experience, Sestak said.

The story of Murthas star-crossed plan illustrates the Democratic Partys deep divisions over the Iraq war and how the new House majority has yet to establish firm control over Congress. From the beginning, Murtha acted on his own to craft a complicated legislative strategy on the war, without consulting fellow Democrats. When he chose to roll out the details on a liberal, antiwar Web site on Feb. 15, he caught even Pelosi by surprise while infuriating Democrats from conservative districts.

Then for an entire week, as members of Congress returned home for a recess, Murtha refused to speak further. Democratic leaders failed to step into the vacuum, and Republicans relentlessly attacked a plan they called a strategy to slowly bleed the war of troops and funds. By the end of the recess, Murthas once promising strategy was in tatters.

Tom Andrews, a former House member and antiwar activist who helped Murtha with his Internet rollout, fumed: The issue to me is, what is the state of the backbone of the Democratic Party? How will they respond to this counterattack? Republicans are throwing touchdown passes on this because the Democrats arent even on the field.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Florida Democrat and deputy whip, said party leaders are working on several Iraq proposals and that Murthas may survive. Finding consensus will be difficult but not impossible, she said. This is a multi-step process, she cautioned. At least were debating the topic, not blindly following the president.

Megan Grote, Murthas spokeswoman, said the congressman will not discuss Iraq policy until a news conference scheduled for the end of the week.

Murtha, 74, the powerful chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, still holds a unique position on war policy, stemming from his roots as a veteran, his close ties to the uniformed military and his long-standing alliance with Pelosi. When he first publicly called for ending the war in 2005, he commanded the attention the partys left and right wings.

The strategy he would craft was designed to calm the nerves of the partys conservatives by fully funding the war, while placating the antiwar left by attaching so many strings to those funds that the president would not be able to deploy all the 21,500 additional combat troops he wanted.

To be sent to battle, troops would have to have had a years rest between combat tours. Soldiers in Iraq could not have their tours extended beyond a year there. And the Pentagons stop-loss policy, which prevents some officers from leaving the military when their service obligations are up, would end. Troops would have to be trained in counterinsurgency and urban warfare and be sent overseas with the equipment they used in training.

Pelosi endorsed the plan in concept but never the details. The plan surfaced Feb. 15 in an unorthodox Murtha appearance on MoveCongress.org, an antiwar Web site affiliated with the liberal activists of MoveOn.org.

It came the day before the House voted on a nonbinding resolution opposing Bushs additional troop deployments that Democratic leaders had been touting as a major rebuke. Murtha dismissed that vote as he promoted his coming plans regarding the war spending bill. This vote will be the most important vote in changing the direction on this war, he said of his proposal. This vote will limit the options of the president and should stop the surge.

To many Democrats, that was not only impolitic, it was disloyal.

He stepped all over Speaker Pelosis message of support for the troops, said Rep. Jim Cooper (Tenn.). That was not team play, to put it mildly.

Even after that Web appearance, some senior Democratic aides say Murtha might well have been able to save his plan if he had quickly laid it out before the Democratic caucus and marshaled Democratic leaders behind a defense. Instead, the House recessed for a week, Murtha disappeared from the media, and Democratic leaders were silent, saying they could not discuss Iraq legislation because no real plan existed.

In the face of an unanswered Republican assault, the Democratic rank-and-file cracked  on the left and the right.

While were all for troop readiness, were all for them having all the equipment they want, Matheson, the Utah Democrat, said, Id be very concerned about doing anything that would hamstring resources and commanders on the ground.

Indeed, Matheson and other Blue Dogs said the Democrats should concentrate on oversight hearings on Iraq policy, while refraining from binding legislation on the war.

The partys newly elected Iraq veterans favor a more straightforward approach than Murtha, establishing a legal timetable for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, Sestak said. And the partys antiwar left is no less unhappy with what they see as half measures from Murtha.

Congress has the authority, and I know it has the responsibility, to get us out of there. And we should use every means possible, said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (Calif.), a co-chairman of the Out of Iraq Caucus.

Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.), another co-chairman who sits on the Appropriations Committee, is likely to try to tie the war spending bill to legislation demanding a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by a date certain, with the bills money available only for the safe withdrawal of the troops.

Such legislation was precisely what Murtha hoped to head off with his recent Internet appearance, said Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who helped connect him with MoveCongress.org. And Moran still believes the appearance ultimately will work to the Democrats favor. The cognoscenti is upset because hes not under their control, Moran said. They would prefer he release his plan to a think tank, but he decided he wanted to communicate directly. He doesnt trust the way the media filters what he says and does. He understands the power of being able to communicate.

http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2007/02/25/murthas-slow-bleed-stumbles-out-of-the-gate/


----------



## maineman (Mar 9, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I have. You are to big an idiot to understand them



you hve refuted the fact that women's literacy was higher in Iraq than in other Islamic countries?  please provide a link.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> you hve refuted the fact that women's literacy was higher in Iraq than in other Islamic countries?  please provide a link.



Iraqi Women Brutalized by Saddam 
February 11, 2003 
by Wendy McElroy, mac@ifeminists.net


Before and after Sept. 11, politically correct feminists crusaded for Afghan women oppressed by the Taliban. By contrast, little outrage has been expressed over the treatment of Iraqi women under Saddam Hussein.

The silence may be currently appropriate -- feminist goals should play no role in forming foreign policy. But the contrast between the two reactions is puzzling, especially in the face of horror stories coming out of Iraq.

Amnesty International has documented the brutal executions of Iraqi women accused of prostitution. For example, Najat Mohammad Haydar, an obstetrician in Baghdad, was beheaded in October 2000 after criticizing corruption within local health services. According to another report, in October 2000 "a group of men led by Saddam Hussein's son Uday, beheaded with knives 50 young women in Baghdad. The heads of these women were hung on the doors of their houses for a few days."

The Iraq Foundation joins Amnesty International in chronicling human rights violations, such as the methods of torture in prison, which include rape and "bringing in a female relative, especially the wife or the mother, and raping her in front of the detainee."

Why then does the Feminist Majority site have a "Help Afghan Women" button but no "Help Iraqi Women?" Why does an Oct. 10, 2002 press release from NOW warn, "A U.S. invasion of Iraq will likely entail ... dangers to the safety and rights of Iraqi women who currently enjoy more rights and freedoms than women in other Gulf nations, such as Saudi Arabia."

Why does Women's eNews run an article by Yasmine Bahrani who states, "As it happens, women's equality is one of the few aspects of the nation's ruling ideology ... that has survived the brutality that has marked Iraqi political life."

The theme seems to be that Saddam may brutally violate human rights but his presence is good for women. For example, the Bahrani article mentions "a recent report" compiled under the auspices of the United Nations in which Iraq "scored highest in women's empowerment" for that region. (Saddam's motives are not mentioned. "Advances," such as mandating five years' maternity leave for women from employers and equal pay with men allowed him both to curry favor with the West and to regulate the economy.)

Without making a case for or against war, I question PC feminism's comparative silence on Iraqi women. The Bahrani article reveals one reason why. It points readers who wish more information to the Iraq Foundation site, which contradicts the article by stating: "The rights of women in Iraq are going down the drain, along with everything else ... In 1998, Saddam ordered all women secretaries working in government agencies be dismissed. Now there are new laws barring women from work altogether."

What is the truth of the situation? The horror stories are starting to mount. On Oct. 4, 2002, seven Iraqi women of different regional, ethnic and religious backgrounds sat on a panel entitled "The Unheard Voices of Iraqi Women." They recounted their personal stories of brutalization under Saddam's regime.

One of the women eloquently stated, "The Iraqi woman has endured torture, murder, confinement, execution, and banishment, just like other in Iraqi society at the hands of Saddam Hussein's criminal gang." She added, "the Iraqi woman has lost her loved ones -- husbands, brothers and fathers." So much for the notion that Saddam can massively violate human rights while protecting those of women.

PC feminism has not ignored such testimony but neither has it embraced the cause of women in Iraq as it did those in Afghanistan.

Several reasons may underlie this apparent reluctance. A condemnation of Saddam may be viewed as an admission that Bush is correct on Iraq. And hatred of Bush runs deep in most feminist circles.

Moreover, the sheer cost of war with Iraq is seen to threaten funding to "pro-woman" causes within the United States in a manner that the Afghanistan conflict did not. This threat was one of two arguments presented against war with Iraq in NOW's Oct. 10 press release. (The second: Invasion might disrupt the rights women allegedly enjoy.)

Regarding money, NOW Action Vice President Olga Vives stated: "As has happened during previous wars, funds will be diverted from ... vitally needed social programs from an already downsized budget. Women will bear the greatest burden of any decrease in domestic spending in order to finance war."

Another source of reluctance could be that condemning Iraq's treatment of women could raise doubts about the accuracy the United Nations' reports, such as the one cited by Bahrani. PC feminism is deeply invested in such U.N. agencies as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination (CEDAW) to which Iraq became a signatory in the '80s.

Activists like Katrin Michael may force feminism to ask uncomfortable questions. Born in a Kurdish area of Iraq, Michael survived the infamous chemical attacks that Saddam used against his own people. Now lobbying in the United States, she is starting to receive attention from PC feminists.

Perhaps they will realize that to roundly condemn Saddam is not to argue for war. It simply gives justice to those Iraqi women who can no longer speak for themselves.

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0211.html


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> the fact is:  women's literacy and job-pay equity in Iraq prior to our invasion was higher than anywhere else in the Islamic world.


 Compare shitty to shittier? I guess that's OK when you're a limp wristed liberal.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> do you have any data to support your assertion that the mortality rate for women in Iraq was statistically higher than any other country in the region?
> 
> I didn't think so.



Good point. Were the rape rooms less active in other countries?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> I post facts:  women's literacy in pre-invasion Iraq was higher than anywhere else in the Islamic world...women's pay equity was higher in pre-invasion Iraq than anywhere else in the Islamic world...
> 
> ... .



Bullshit. Back it up.


----------



## maineman (Mar 12, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Compare shitty to shittier? I guess that's OK when you're a limp wristed liberal.



I merely make the point that the demonization of Saddam and Iraq in order to justify our invasion of that country when they had no connection to the attack on our country, when such an invasion has put the entire region into turmoil, is based upon false and misleading emotional arguments put together like a house of cards.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you suggesting that women were significantly less safe in Iraq than they were in other islamic countries?  Or are you denying the fact that they had greater socioeconomic opportunities in Iraq than elsewhere in the Islamic world?


 Again, comapre shitty with shittier. And where's your backup to your SUPPOSED FACTS?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> you are saying that in Nazi Germany, Aryan men and women were targets?


 WTF does that have to do with Iraq?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> I merely make the point that the demonization of Saddam and Iraq in order to justify our invasion of that country when they had no connection to the attack on our country, when such an invasion has put the entire region into turmoil, is based upon false and misleading emotional arguments put together like a house of cards.



That's BS. I've already given you 54 sources that prove the connection. Are you incapable of reading?


----------



## maineman (Mar 12, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Good point. Were the rape rooms less active in other countries?



so we invade countries around the globe, conquer them, occupy them every time the number of rapes reaches some magical annual limit?  why have I never heard of that policy before?


----------



## maineman (Mar 12, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Again, comapre shitty with shittier. And where's your backup to your SUPPOSED FACTS?



why don't YOU post some facts to disprove my assertions.  If you are so sure I am wrong, you could easily find some non-partisan source to disprvoe me.  

I'll wait.


----------



## maineman (Mar 12, 2007)

glockmail said:


> That's BS. I've already given you 54 sources that prove the connection. Are you incapable of reading?




you gave me 54 sources - many of them op-ed peieces...many of them single sources of dubious or already discredited authenticity ...that ALLEGE a connection.  YOu don't have the foggiest idea what the word "prove" means.


----------



## maineman (Mar 12, 2007)

glockmail said:


> That's BS. I've already given you 54 sources that prove the connection. Are you incapable of reading?



and single source meetings between AQ members and Iraqis after 9/11 are not PROOF of a connection between Saddam and 9/11.... moron.


----------



## maineman (Mar 12, 2007)

glockmail said:


> WTF does that have to do with Iraq?



follow the thread....it was in response to a post from one of your buddies that first mentioned the treatment of women in Nazi germany.

Do try to keep up.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> so we invade countries around the globe, conquer them, occupy them every time the number of rapes reaches some magical annual limit?  why have I never heard of that policy before?


 You can just tell them to fuck off and pound sand.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> ....
> 
> Do try to keep up.


 It looks like your the one who needs more amps on his wheelchair.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> and single source meetings between AQ members and Iraqis after 9/11 are not PROOF of a connection between Saddam and 9/11.... moron.



Right. 1000 meetings does not prove a connection.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> why don't YOU post some facts to disprove my assertions.  If you are so sure I am wrong, you could easily find some non-partisan source to disprvoe me.
> 
> I'll wait.




It doesn't work that way, Salty. You made the assertion, now you prove it. I won't be holding my breath waiting.


----------



## maineman (Mar 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> follow the thread....it was in response to a post from one of your buddies that first mentioned the treatment of women in Nazi germany.
> 
> Do try to keep up.



Let me get this straight.... you ask me WHAT THE *FUCK* something I wrote in direct response to a statement by YOUR pal had to do with Iran..... In response to that foul and confrontational query, I merely suggest that you need to read the thread and follow the dialog and you wouldn't have to ask such inane questions, and you give me a negative reputation comment for "the insult"?

ROFLMFAO

Perhaps you are just menstruating.


----------



## maineman (Mar 12, 2007)

glockmail said:


> It doesn't work that way, Salty. You made the assertion, now you prove it. I won't be holding my breath waiting.



If I said the sky was blue and rain was wet, would I need to prove that as well?  some things are fairly well known.... the level of women's literacy in Iraq when compared to the rest of the middle east is one such thing.

Don't believe me?  I could give a shit.  Go look it up if you doubt me.  whatever blows your skirt up.


----------



## maineman (Mar 12, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Right. 1000 meetings does not prove a connection.



is there a connection, therefore, between America and the Russian's treatment of Chechnyan rebels?  We have had lots of meetings with Russians over the years.  Perhaps our meetings with the russians prove our complicity in the crushing of the hungarian uprising?

and nonetheless...many of the meetings alleged by your dubious sources were supposedly held after 9/11.  They hardly prove anything about anything that predates them.


----------



## maineman (Mar 12, 2007)

glockmail said:


> It looks like your the one who needs more amps on his wheelchair.



your buddy RSR brought up Nazi germany and women...I only responded to him.  Your question proved you were unaware of that fact.

Do try to keep up.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> ....
> 
> Perhaps you are just menstruating.


  Perhaps your anus is bleeding from your trip to Greece.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> If I said the sky was blue and rain was wet, would I need to prove that as well?  some things are fairly well known.... the level of women's literacy in Iraq when compared to the rest of the middle east is one such thing.
> 
> Don't believe me?  I could give a shit.  Go look it up if you doubt me.  whatever blows your skirt up.



So basically you have no prove and are asking me to believe you. Not a chance.


----------



## maineman (Mar 12, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Perhaps your anus is bleeding from your trip to Greece.



sounds like you speak from some experience?

my wife and I went to Rome, by the way.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> .......many of the meetings alleged by your dubious sources were supposedly held after 9/11.  They hardly prove anything about anything that predates them.



All 54 mostly main stream sources are dubious? Is that your best you sorry old man? I suggest you plug your wheel chair and pacemaker back in.


----------



## maineman (Mar 12, 2007)

glockmail said:


> So basically you have no prove and are asking me to believe you. Not a chance.



I am asking nothing of you.  If you chose not to believe me, you really do need to know that I could care less.


----------



## maineman (Mar 12, 2007)

glockmail said:


> All 54 mostly main stream sources are dubious? Is that your best you sorry old man? I suggest you plug your wheel chair and pacemaker back in.



what loonie neocons consider mainstream and what the rest of the world considers mainstream are two different things.  

bottom line:  all you have is a pile of unsubstantiated mostly single sourced allegations.  You really need to learn the difference between allegations and proof.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> sounds like you speak from some experience?
> 
> my wife and I went to Rome, by the way.



Rome, Greece, there's homos for you at both places. I'm glad your experience gave you hemorrhoids.  Try putting some salt on those as well.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> what loonie neocons consider mainstream and what the rest of the world considers mainstream are two different things.
> 
> bottom line:  all you have is a pile of unsubstantiated mostly single sourced allegations.  You really need to learn the difference between allegations and proof.



The sources include: LATimes, BBC, Frontline, Boston Globe, NYT, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, ABC, Philadelphia Daily News, CBS, The Times of London, ..

So just who the FUCK is the LOONEY? How many brain cells do you have left after drinking yourself stoopid every night?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am asking nothing of you.  If you chose not to believe me, you really do need to know that I could care less.


 I've gone well beyond caring what you think, Mr. Shitferbrains.


----------



## maineman (Mar 12, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Rome, Greece, there's homos for you at both places. I'm glad your experience gave you hemorrhoids.  Try putting some salt on those as well.



why would I care about gay men? it is you who seems obsessed with them - certainly not me.  I have a gorgeous wife and three great kids.... I am straight as an arrow.


and are you really just limited to sophomoric insults or do you ever plan on offering anything of substance?  

Did you bother, by the way, to go back and see where it was your buddy RSR who brought up women and Nazis and I only responded to him?

I put him on ignore a while back and have not missed his "input".  If all you have to offer is childish insults about Hemorrhoids, maybe that would be approprate for you as well.

what do you say?


----------



## maineman (Mar 12, 2007)

glockmail said:


> The sources include: LATimes, BBC, Frontline, Boston Globe, NYT, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, ABC, Philadelphia Daily News, CBS, The Times of London, ..
> 
> So just who the FUCK is the LOONEY? How many brain cells do you have left after drinking yourself stoopid every night?



if all of those sources report on the unsubstantiated statements of an Iraqi defector, does that somehow make them facts and proof instead of unsubstantiated single sourced allegations?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> why would I care about gay men?....


 I suppose you got that habbit living all those lonely years at sea....


----------



## maineman (Mar 12, 2007)

glockmail said:


> I suppose you got that habbit living all those lonely years at sea....


you suppose wrong.  really glock....is this going to be the extent of it?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> you suppose wrong.  really glock....is this going to be the extent of it?



Oh yes, I forgot- no sheep at sea, just men, men, men, men.....


----------



## maineman (Mar 12, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Oh yes, I forgot- no sheep at sea, just men, men, men, men.....




last chance.... do we elevate this or do I ignore you?  Your choice.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> last chance.... do we elevate this or do I ignore you?  Your choice.


 Ignore me and I'll neg rep you twice as often.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> last chance.... do we elevate this or do I ignore you?  Your choice.



Do not go away mad - just go away


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Do not go away mad - just go away


 Or better yet, have some more salt with your clicks.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 12, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Or better yet, have some more salt with your clicks.



with extra mayo


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2007)

red states rule said:


> with extra mayo



Love those lard on Wonder Bread sandwhiches. Shiver me timbers and pass the cabin boy around, men, men, men!


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2007)

maineman said:


> last chance.... do we elevate this or do I ignore you?  Your choice.


 Crymainebaby left, but not before neg repping me a whopping one point!


----------



## red states rule (Mar 12, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Crymainebaby left, but not before neg repping me a whopping one point!



and I thought the air was clear because the smog had lifted


----------



## jodylee (Mar 14, 2007)

change the rules, do what ever, to stop mad king george.


----------



## CTRLALTDEL (Mar 14, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Ignore me and I'll neg rep you twice as often.





So what are you now??  The Britney "Desperately seeking attention" Spears of this messageboard??


----------



## glockmail (Mar 14, 2007)

CTRLALTDEL said:


> So what are you now??  The Britney "Desperately seeking attention" Spears of this messageboard??


Yeah. I'm just like Britney Spears. 

Go to "rate these posts" to see why I'm at war with that lying puke, maineman (a man who claims to be ex-Navy).


----------



## red states rule (Mar 15, 2007)

Cheney speaks truth to PelosiSpeak truth to power.

The phrase conjures visions of Old Testament patriarchs or civil rights prophets stepping forward in difficult times to utter unpopular, discomfiting truths.

Of course, the phrase loses its power when commonplace. There's nothing biblical or righteous about an MSNBC promo for an announcer who "speaks truth to power," or a senator asking at a confirmation hearing, "Will you speak truth to power?" That's just politics.

So it was encouraging to see a recent example of the real thing.

During a trip to Asia last month, Vice President Cheney, in an ABC News interview, said the troop withdrawal ideas promoted by some leading Democrats were similar to al-Qaeda's plans for Iraq:

"If we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we'll do is validate the al-Qaeda strategy. The al-Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people - in fact, knowing they can't win in a stand-up fight, try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit... .

"You can't look at Iraq in isolation. You've got to look at it in terms of its impact, what we're doing in Afghanistan, what we're doing in Pakistan, what we're doing in Saudi Arabia. All those areas are part of the global battlefield... and you can't quit in one place and then persuade all your allies who are helping you in all those other theaters... to continue the fight."

How does he know the enemy's intent? They tell us.

Here's Osama bin Laden in a 2004 audio message: "The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad."

Bin Laden's right-hand man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, laid out a plan in a July 2005 letter: "The jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals. The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate - over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq. The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage:... the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity."

So Cheney was speaking a simple truth: Al-Qaeda wants the United States out of Iraq. And congressional calls to give up, regardless of conditions on the ground or what happens next in the wider war, validate that strategy.

That doesn't mean there can be no dissent to current policy. A free society debates issues, and there are plenty of reasons offered to quit: War itself is a mistake. The initial invasion was a mistake. The occupation has been a series of mistakes. Refereeing a sectarian struggle that goes beyond fighting al-Qaeda is a mistake.

People will advocate as conscience dictates. All Cheney did was point out that advocacy doesn't occur in a vacuum.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) called the vice president's remarks "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in." Wrong. This is precisely the debate we should be engaged in. Everyone wants the war to end, to see the troops safely home. The question is how? Under what terms?

As U.S. leaders try to answer these questions, they can't pretend the discussion is an exchange of theories in a college seminar with no real-world implications. Words have meaning. They reassure allies and troops, or worry them. They dishearten enemies, or comfort them. If al-Qaeda's hopes for a precipitative U.S. withdrawal are echoed in congressional resolutions, that's got to be comforting. It may not be the intent, but it's the reality.

Pelosi said Cheney was questioning the "patriotism of those in Congress who challenge the Bush administration's misguided policies in Iraq."

Wrong again. And Cheney's reply was characteristically blunt and on target: "I didn't question her patriotism. I questioned her judgment."

There's reason to question many judgments when it comes to Iraq, but in this case Cheney is right. And he speaks from experience. He worked in the White House 32 years ago, for President Ford, when Southeast Asian allies were abandoned to their enemies. Millions were killed and displaced.

If that nightmare is replayed in Iraq, Pelosi and the anti-war powers will have to answer for the truths they've left unspoken.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/16906455.htm


----------



## red states rule (Mar 15, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Right. 1000 meetings does not prove a connection.



Of course in the spririt of MM, the liberal media continues to smear the US military

CNN's Carol Costello: Pace Controversy 'Just Won't Go Away'
Posted by Michael M. Bates on March 14, 2007 - 23:04. 
On Wednesday's "The Situation Room," CNN's Carol Costello did a story on Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-N.Y.) response to Gen. Peter Pace's statement that homosexual acts are immoral.

COSTELLO: You know, Wolf, gay groups have strong denounced General Peter Pace's comments about homosexuality. They're angry, and they expected Senator Clinton to show her anger, too. She didn't.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)


COSTELLO (voice over): It has become the controversy that just won't go away. 

GEN. PETER PACE, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral. 

Yes, it just won't go away. It's a story that's been dragging on for all of two days now, since the Chicago Tribune reported the General's comments. 

Ms. Costello could have more accurately said: It has become the controversy that those in the mainstream media hope just won't go away. And they'll do their best to make certain it doesn't.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11431


----------



## red states rule (Mar 16, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Yeah. I'm just like Britney Spears.
> 
> Go to "rate these posts" to see why I'm at war with that lying puke, maineman (a man who claims to be ex-Navy).



Four-Star Homophobe Slanders Gay, Babykilling Troops
"All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned." - Charles Ingalls

Gen. Peter Paces bigoted remark that homosexual behavior is immoral was not only an obvious jab at John Edwards, but a Pattonesque slap in the faces of the 65,000 gay, babykilling troops who are currently slaughtering innocents in Iraq. 

Pace expressed regret for his hateful words, but it was not the teary-eyed mea culpa such an egregious slur requires. Rather than beg the Gay Community for forgiveness, Pace merely apologized for not keeping his personal opinions to himself.

It is indeed highly inappropriate for any active member of the armed forces to publicly express an opinion that isnt strongly anti-Bush or anti-war, let alone a four-star General. However, Paces crime was not in the stating of his old-fashioned, anti-sodomy beliefs, but actually having them. One cant help but wonder how such an insensitive bigot (not to mention a total square) could ever be given a position of command. Obviously, his appointment was made at the behest of Bushs Evangelical masters who dont know how to have a good time, and somehow think they can please Jesus by ruining everyone elses fun as well. It's a shame that our gay, babykilling troops have to suffer for it. 

Paces half-assed confession today was about as good as we can expect from a neocon fascist homophobe who never served his country, choosing instead to join the Marines. However, he has yet to apologize to the thousands of brave gay men, womyn, and transgendered activists who have devoted their lives to the cause of normalizing sexual deviancy to such an extent that a decorated General is made to feel like a criminal for disapproving of it.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/


----------



## glockmail (Mar 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Of course in the spririt of MM, ....



Is he dead?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 16, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Is he dead?



only his brain cells


----------



## glockmail (Mar 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> only his brain cells


... and his shrivelled dick.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 16, 2007)

glockmail said:


> ... and his shrivelled dick.



you mean he has one?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 16, 2007)

red states rule said:


> you mean he has one?


 Oh, I'm sorry. Did it get gangrenous and fall off?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 16, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Oh, I'm sorry. Did it get gangrenous and fall off?



like his small brain - no great loss


----------



## red states rule (Mar 16, 2007)

Libs have a nasty habit of defedning terrorists and bashing America


WashPost Hypes Pentagon Protest With Ramsey Clark, Leaves Out His Saddam Lawyering
Posted by Tim Graham on March 16, 2007 - 07:43. 
The Washington Post's reverence for protests -- the leftist ones, that is -- is clearly on display on the front of Friday's Metro section, with advance publicity for a Saturday "peace" march on the Pentagon starring Ramsey Clark, fresh from his unsuccessful defense lawyering for Saddam Hussein. (That fact is never mentioned in Steve Vogel's article.) On roughly the fourth anniversary of the initial blitz on Baghdad and forty years after the violent "levitate the Pentagon" protests of 1967, the Post splashes photographs down most of the front page of Metro, of 1967 at the top and 2007 at the bottom. The story sprawled out across most of B-3, and included another story by Michael Ruane on Christian "peace witness" at the White House.

Two months ago, the Post gave the March for Life and against abortion a tiny box inside the paper on the day of the rally, complete with "pro-choice" events. That could not be defined as splashy pre-protest publicity.

Vogel's report carried the headline: "Once More to the Pentagon: Demonstrators Evoke Historic Confrontation In Planning March, Rally Opposing  Iraq War." At the top of the page, a caption of a 1967 photograph read: "The Oct. 21 march marked a turning point in public sentiment toward the Vietnam War, former attorney general Ramsey Clark says." Clark emerges later in the story as well: 

"The 1967 march wasn't the biggest, but in some ways it's the most historically significant because of the target," said Brian Becker, national coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition, the main sponsor of tomorrow's protest. "It represented a shift in public opinion."

In tying their protest to the Oct. 21, 1967, march, organizers say they are capitalizing on a similar climate among angry voters who believe the results of November elections have been ignored.

Ramsey Clark, who as attorney general for President Lyndon Johnson helped oversee the administration's preparations for the march, said that day shifted the ground under the government. "From that moment, I got the feeling that we'd reached a turning point in the commitment of many people to ending the war in Vietnam," Clark said in an interview this week.

Whether today's feelings match those of 40 years ago is another question. Clark will be among the speakers tomorrow. "I can't tell you that we have the depth of passion or breadth of commitment today that we had then," Clark said.

Vogel obviously did not work on this story for a day or two. It reads like a reverent history of the 1967 protest. While it does include testimony from Pentagon personnel who recount the violence and vulgarity of protesters, it elevates the protest into a historical touchstone or turning point, as Clark claimed in the caption. Vogel's second paragraph betrays his attraction to the protesters and their apparently earth-shattering activism: 

The 1967 march on the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War became a touchstone event in American history, one that pitted U.S. citizens against "the true and high church of the military-industrial complex," as marcher and author Norman Mailer put it.

Vogel promotes to Post readers how buses and vans will come from all over to protest. (The same was true of the March for Life, but Post readers weren't told that a few weeks ago):

Buses, vans and caravans from across the United States are coming, organizers say, with veterans, soldiers and military family members marching in the first rank of the demonstration. Heading across the Arlington Memorial Bridge to the Pentagon north parking lot, the demonstrators will follow literally in the steps of the earlier protesters. A counter-demonstration in support of the war is also planned for tomorrow.

Will the counter-demonstrators get their own picture in addition to that measly sentence? They certainly did at the March for Life. 

Vogel uses no labels to describe Clark, Becker, the ANSWER Coalition, or any other radical leftist that's quoted. The only references to ideology were vague descriptions of historical perceptions of the 1967 march:

The 1967 march still raises emotions at both ends of the political spectrum. On the left, it is remembered as a time when peaceful marchers were confronted by bayonet-wielding soldiers and beaten. On the right, the march is recalled as a disgraceful event during which military police were subjected to terrible abuse from protesters.

History shows that both views hold elements of truth. Soldiers manning the line in front of the Pentagon Mall entrance were taunted with vicious slurs and pelted with garbage and fish. Some defenseless protesters sitting peacefully were clubbed and hauled off.

In his article on the White House "Christian peace witness," Ruane used the P-word just once:  

The event is sponsored by the District-based Sojourners/Call to Renewal, a progressive religious group, along with the American Friends Service Committee, Lutheran Peace Fellowship, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, and more than two dozen other Protestant and Catholic groups.

Ruane also noted that activist Celeste Zappala, whose son died in Iraq, will be there, and so will Taylor Branch, a Friend of Bill (Clinton) and the author of several books on Martin Luther King Jr.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11457


----------



## Vintij (Mar 27, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Libs have a nasty habit of defedning terrorists and bashing America
> 
> 
> WashPost Hypes Pentagon Protest With Ramsey Clark, Leaves Out His Saddam Lawyering
> ...




Its another POV article. yawn. All this demonstrates is democracy and freedom of speach. This is america, protests are common, as well as articles like this one.


----------



## Paul Revere (Mar 27, 2007)

Avatar4321 said:


> Iran has been supplying our enemies in Iraq and even sending troops lately. Let's stop tip toeing around the issue and admit that they are engaged in a war against us.
> 
> Leaving Iraq will not stop war. The only way to stop the war is to defeat our enemies.



First are you saying that never leaning Iraq is going to be worth the cost of dforever fighting insurgents/resistance fighters that our presence their creates?

Second, please provide a credible source that Iran is supplying enmies in Iraq and sending troops.  The only sources I ahve found have been 'unnamed' and  Michael R. Gordon, the same New York Times reporter who wrote some of the key, and badly misleading, inaccurate, totally false articles about Iraqi WMDs in the run-up to the 2003 invasion. 

Bush was wrong, the 'fool-me's can get fooled again!


----------



## Vintij (Mar 27, 2007)

Sorry, I doubt congress will approve any military action on Iran despite if they are supplying weapons or not. Bush already used that excuse up and lost everyones trust on military intellegence matters. The invisible weapons one, was used on iraq.


----------



## Paul Revere (Mar 27, 2007)

Vintij said:


> Sorry, I doubt congress will approve any military action on Iran despite if they are supplying weapons or not. Bush already used that excuse up and lost everyones trust on military intellegence matters. The invisible weapons one, was used on iraq.



Do you believe he will care whether Congress approves or not?

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel (R) has quoted Bush as sayng,"I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else'" and "I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed." Senator Hagel is talking about possible impeachment. If he is impeached, it will be the first time an American dictator will have been impeached.

I hope that both Bush and Cheney are impeached. Then investigated, tied and punished as trators to the US and the Constitution. You plastic patriots that still back him are no better that the "good Germans" of the 1930's Germany.


----------



## Emmett (Mar 27, 2007)

Iran may capture as many Allied soldiers as they like and feel no retribution! OK< How many soldiers will they be allowed to kidnap? 

a) 15

b) 1500

c) 15,000

d) as many as they want



As I am just as sure as you lefties are that Suddam Hussein was a good, morale man of high character, and that damn president Bush should never have "dethrowned" his ass. 

American soldiers are all killers, just worthless murderers, right?

Iran needs a nuclear weapon, right?

Since we have pointed out all of Mr. Bush's crimes and other shortcomings, what would YOU, should I say, what should WE do now? Impeach Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, let's see, that would make Nancy Pelosi the President. OK, that lends new meaning to the word safety, does it not?

Don't you think we should build some nuclear plants for Hizbollah also, maybe lend them a few nukes too.

Do you lefties believe there was a holocaust?

I think we should apologize to the Japanese for defending ourselves in World War 2, don't you?

One thing is for absolute sure, we need either the Beast or Osama to be our next President. I would rather be consumed by knats!


----------



## maineman (Mar 27, 2007)

Emmett said:


> Iran may capture as many Allied soldiers as they like and feel no retribution! OK< How many soldiers will they be allowed to kidnap?
> 
> a) 15
> 
> ...



do you wish to be taken seriously by anyone?


----------



## Vintij (Mar 27, 2007)

Your sarcasm does not portray the democrats position on anything. You basically made up extreme opinions of treasists, not liberals. Mainman is right, if you want to be taken seriously, you should start making sense. Because personally i have never heard any democrat agree or even insinuate one thing you just claimed.

PS. yes we should appologize to the japanese, for murdering 100,000 civlians in one single day, when they were already on the brink of surrender from the previous bombings in the weeks prior.  If we are going to drop such a destructive bomb, at least drop it near enemy bases, or anywhere away from 100,000 civilians, 45&#37; of which were women and children.


----------



## Emmett (Mar 27, 2007)

Vintij said:


> Your sarcasm does not portray the democrats position on anything. You basically made up extreme opinions of treasists, not liberals. Mainman is right, if you want to be taken seriously, you should start making sense. Because personally i have never heard any democrat agree or even insinuate one thing you just claimed.
> 
> PS. yes we should appologize to the japanese, for murdering 100,000 civlians in one single day, when they were already on the brink of surrender from the previous bombings in the weeks prior.  If we are going to drop such a destructive bomb, at least drop it near enemy bases, or anywhere away from 100,000 civilians, 45% of which were women and children.



First you say not one democrat agree or even insinuate one thing I claimed. Then you turn right around and say we should apologize for dropping the bomb, which is exactly what I said! So, at least one democrat DOES think we should apologize, YOU! 

Now, for your information. The Japanese were never on the brink of surrender. The brink of surrender did not apply to a race of folks who commit suicide to fight a war. When they surrender, they surrender. After, not before, after they were bombed, they surrendered. 

Oh, by the way, there were innocent woman and children at Pearl Harbor also pal. Lots of them! You might also want to check your map, there were innocent woman and children in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. I'll let you figure out the rest of it.


----------



## Vintij (Mar 27, 2007)

Emmett said:


> First you say not one democrat agree or even insinuate one thing I claimed. Then you turn right around and say we should apologize for dropping the bomb, which is exactly what I said! So, at least one democrat DOES think we should apologize, YOU!
> 
> Now, for your information. The Japanese were never on the brink of surrender. The brink of surrender did not apply to a race of folks who commit suicide to fight a war. When they surrender, they surrender. After, not before, after they were bombed, they surrendered.
> 
> Oh, by the way, there were innocent woman and children at Pearl Harbor also pal. Lots of them! You might also want to check your map, there were innocent woman and children in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. I'll let you figure out the rest of it.






Emmett said:


> First you say not one democrat agree or even insinuate one thing I claimed. Then you turn right around and say we should apologize for dropping the bomb, which is exactly what I said! So, at least one democrat DOES think we should apologize, YOU!
> 
> Now, for your information. The Japanese were never on the brink of surrender. The brink of surrender did not apply to a race of folks who commit suicide to fight a war. When they surrender, they surrender. After, not before, after they were bombed, they surrendered.
> 
> Oh, by the way, there were innocent woman and children at Pearl Harbor also pal. Lots of them! You might also want to check your map, there were innocent woman and children in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. I'll let you figure out the rest of it.



What are you talking about, im not a democrat for starters, That was an assumption. Not suprised. 

What does LA, SF, and seatle have to do with this? Japan attacked pearl habor, thats it. Most of the war was faught in the philipines and in japan. Nobody attacked Those citys. Are you in never land or something? And yes, japan was nearly burned to the ground before the atom bomb was dropped. Focus man, just focus.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 28, 2007)

Cafferty Claims Bush Would Use Detaining of British Soldiers as Pretext to Invade Iran
Posted by Scott Whitlock on March 27, 2007 - 17:00. 
According to CNNs Jack Cafferty, President Bush would jump at the opportunity to use the kidnapping of 15 British soldiers as a pretext to invade Iran. On the Monday edition of "Situation Room," Cafferty asserted that he hoped U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair doesnt ask George W. Bush to join a coalition of the willing whose goal it is to free the captives. 

Jack Cafferty: "Lets hope British Prime Minister Tony Blair doesnt ask the United States to join a coalition of the willing to invade Iran and get its hostages back. My feeling is President Bush would be on that like a bird on a worm." 

The CNN host also saw scary implications in the fact that the U.S. Navy is just off the coast of Iran: 

Jack Cafferty: "Meanwhile, and this is scary, the U.S. Navy has begun large scale military exercises in the Persian Gulf today, one of the biggest shows of force since the invasion of Iraq, with some U.S. Navy warships just miles off the coast of Iran. Heres the question: How should Britain go about trying to win the release of its captured sailors and Marines from Iran?...Its a little frightening whats going on over there right now, Wolf." 

Perhaps Mr. Cafferty joins Rosie ODonnell in theorizing that this whole incident is the second coming of the Gulf of Tonkin incident? 

A transcript of the segment, which aired at 4:07pm on March 27, follows: 

Jack Cafferty: "Lets hope British Prime Minister Tony Blair doesnt ask the United States to join a coalition of the willing to invade Iran and get its hostages back. My feeling is President Bush would be on that like a bird on a worm. To borrow a phrase from the British, the seizing of 15 sailors and Marines last week in the Persian Gulf presents a bit of a sticky wicket for the Prime Minister. And today, Mr. Blair warned Iran that negotiations to get the Brits back will, quote, move into a different phase, if diplomacy fails. Iran wont say where its holding the captors, wont allow British diplomats to see them. Some hardliners in Iran want to charge them with espionage. The dispute all goes back to whether or not these 15 soldiers and Marines were in, or sailors and Marines, were in Iranian territorial waters or Iraqi territorial waters. When it comes to holding hostages, Iran is a country with a PHD. Remember the 70s? Iran held Americans hostage for 444 days. Now, the U.N. voted this last weekend to lay some heavy duty sanctions on Iran because it refuses to stop enriching uranium. So, the holding of these British sailors and Marines could represent an international game of tit-for-tat. Meanwhile, and this is scary, the U.S. Navy has begun large scale military exercises in the Persian Gulf today, one of the biggest shows of force since the invasion of Iraq, with some U.S. Navy warships just miles off the coast of Iran. Heres the question: How should Britain go about trying to win the release of its captured sailors and marines from Iran? E-mail your thoughts to Caffertyfile@CNN.com or go to CNN.com/Caffertyfile. Its a little frightening whats going on over there right now, Wolf." 

http://newsbusters.org/node/11668


----------



## Paul Revere (Mar 28, 2007)

Bush is looking for a "Gulf of Tonkin Incident", but this is not a good one. To many people in this country and throughout the world know that the British were not were they should have been and were not doing what they were supposed to be doing.

To seize this as his excuse to attack Iran will backfire. Not even Bush is that stupid....never mind.... we are talking about Bush....all cards are up his sleeve.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 28, 2007)

Paul Revere said:


> Bush is looking for a "Gulf of Tonkin Incident", but this is not a good one. To many people in this country and throughout the world know that the British were not were they should have been and were not doing what they were supposed to be doing.
> 
> To seize this as his excuse to attack Iran will backfire. Not even Bush is that stupid....never mind.... we are talking about Bush....all cards are up his sleeve.



but smart enough to take the fight to the terrorists unlike Clinton who did nothing and allowed Atta and Co to move around unchecked for over a year


----------



## maineman (Mar 29, 2007)

red states rule said:


> but smart enough to take the fight to the terrorists unlike Clinton who did nothing and allowed Atta and Co to move around unchecked for over a year



and Bush allowed them to move around unchecked for nearly nine months..and let them learn how to fly jet liners into buildings while he cut brush and grilled steaks and didn't care about reports that they were preparing to attack us.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 29, 2007)

maineman said:


> and Bush allowed them to move around unchecked for nearly nine months..and let them learn how to fly jet liners into buildings while he cut brush and grilled steaks and didn't care about reports that they were preparing to attack us.



and the Clinton administration built the wall where intel agencies could NOT share information


----------



## maineman (Mar 29, 2007)

red states rule said:


> and the Clinton administration built the wall where intel agencies could NOT share information



the FBI agent in Oklahoma wrote HIS superiors that he was concerned about arabs learning to fly jets and not caring about learning how to land.... that report languished in that agency - it had nothing to do with SHARING with anyone...it had to do with the Bush DOJ not giving a shit about terrorism and being more concerned with pornography.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 29, 2007)

maineman said:


> the FBI agent in Oklahoma wrote HIS superiors that he was concerned about arabs learning to fly jets and not caring about learning how to land.... that report languished in that agency - it had nothing to do with SHARING with anyone...it had to do with the Bush DOJ not giving a shit about terrorism and being more concerned with pornography.



Since when did Bush care about Clinton and his legacy?

and Bill did nothing after five attacks and running away from a fight and the bodies of troops dragged thru the streets


----------



## maineman (Mar 29, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Since when did Bush care about Clinton and his legacy?
> 
> and Bill did nothing after five attacks and running away from a fight and the bodies of troops dragged thru the streets



I say again:  "the FBI agent in Oklahoma wrote HIS superiors that he was concerned about arabs learning to fly jets and not caring about learning how to land.... that report languished in that agency - it had nothing to do with SHARING with anyone...it had to do with the Bush DOJ not giving a shit about terrorism and being more concerned with pornography."

That is not the Clinton legacy..that is wrong focus on the part of Team Bush.... getting pornographers was more important than getting terrorists for them.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 29, 2007)

maineman said:


> I say again:  "the FBI agent in Oklahoma wrote HIS superiors that he was concerned about arabs learning to fly jets and not caring about learning how to land.... that report languished in that agency - it had nothing to do with SHARING with anyone...it had to do with the Bush DOJ not giving a shit about terrorism and being more concerned with pornography."
> 
> That is not the Clinton legacy..that is wrong focus on the part of Team Bush.... getting pornographers was more important than getting terrorists for them.



and Clinton had several chances to get OBL and he did not. He had more pressing "affairs" that had his attention


----------



## maineman (Mar 29, 2007)

red states rule said:


> and Clinton had several chances to get OBL and he did not. He had more pressing "affairs" that had his attention



at least Clinton tried to get him....Team Bush cancelled the predator UAV recon flights over Afghanistan that Clinton had been using to try and find OBL.... Bush could have cared less...he was worrried about stopping pornography.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 29, 2007)

maineman said:


> at least Clinton tried to get him....Team Bush cancelled the predator UAV recon flights over Afghanistan that Clinton had been using to try and find OBL.... Bush could have cared less...he was worrried about stopping pornography.



and Sandy Burgler hung up on the intel folks who wanted the go ahead to take OBL out


----------



## maineman (Mar 29, 2007)

red states rule said:


> and Sandy Burgler hung up on the intel folks who wanted the go ahead to take OBL out



ignoring the fact that Bush cancelled UAV flights that might have found OBL?

I guess that is understandable.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 29, 2007)

On Tape, Clinton Admits Passing Up bin Laden Capture; Lewinsky Played Role 

Bill Clinton denies it now, but he once admitted he passed up an opportunity to extradite Osama bin Laden.

And NewsMax has the former President making the claim on audiotape. [You can listen to the tape yourself] -- Click Here

Clinton's comments and his actions relating to American efforts to capture bin Laden have taken on renewed interest because of claims made in a new ABC movie, the "Path to 9/11," that suggests Clinton dropped the ball during his presidency. Clinton has also angrily denied claims the Monica Lewinsky scandal drew his attention away from dealing with national security matters like capturing bin Laden
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/10/181819.shtml?s=ic


----------



## maineman (Mar 29, 2007)

what does the fact that America did not have enough evidence or information in May of '96 about criminal activity against American interests by Osama bin Laden to incarcerate him or even legally take custody of him have to do with the OTHER fact that the Bush administration cancelled predator overfllights early in 2001 that were being conducted to try and locate Osama bin Laden well after we DID have enough information and evidence against him?


----------



## red states rule (Mar 29, 2007)

maineman said:


> what does the fact that America did not have enough evidence or information in May of '96 about criminal activity against American interests by Osama bin Laden to incarcerate him or even legally take custody of him have to do with the OTHER fact that the Bush administration cancelled predator overfllights early in 2001 that were being conducted to try and locate Osama bin Laden well after we DID have enough information and evidence against him?



Point is, first Clinton lied about his inactivity then he gets caught on tape telling the truth


Remids me of Uncle Al's "no controling legal authority" excuse


----------



## glockmail (Mar 29, 2007)

maineman said:


> what does the fact that America did not have enough evidence or information in May of '96 about criminal activity against American interests by Osama bin Laden to incarcerate him or even legally take custody of him have to do with the OTHER fact that the Bush administration cancelled predator overfllights early in 2001 that were being conducted to try and locate Osama bin Laden well after we DID have enough information and evidence against him?




This is your typical lib shit: "enough evidence".  We don't need to satisfy your silly standard of proof. If we know the man's a terrorist, and he threatens us, then we should go an get the bastard.


----------



## maineman (Mar 29, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Point is, first Clinton lied about his inactivity then he gets caught on tape telling the truth
> 
> 
> Remids me of Uncle Al's "no controling legal authority" excuse



point is:  Bush stopped the surveillance flights that were trying to locate OBL... because Bush didn't care about terrorism.  He was more worried about porno...and that is proven by Ashcroft taking $52M out of the DOJ anti-terrorism budget the very day before 9/11.    

And if you could just show me a link to the evidence we had on Osama bin Laden in the spring of '96 that would have justified our taking custody of a foreign national on foreign soil and incarcerating him...that would be real nice.

the fact is: we knew very little about the man in  the spring of '96....


----------



## maineman (Mar 29, 2007)

RSR:  any luck in finding all that evidence we had on Osama in May of '96?

Any explanation why Bush cancelled the predator drone surveillance flights that were looking for Osama?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 29, 2007)

maineman said:


> RSR:  any luck in finding all that evidence we had on Osama in May of '96?
> 
> Any explanation why Bush cancelled the predator drone surveillance flights that were looking for Osama?



Don't bother. Unless George Soros told hin directly maineman would not believe anything that doesn't jive with his perception of reality.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 29, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Don't bother. Unless George Soros told hin directly maineman would not believe anything that doesn't jive with his perception of reality.



or Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews


----------



## maineman (Mar 29, 2007)

This message is hidden because glockmail is on your ignore list.

 

and when someone is on your ignore list, the swarm of nasty little negative reputation comments they obsessively post about you don't tally.

pity


----------



## maineman (Mar 29, 2007)

red states rule said:


> or Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews



I gues that means you cannot find any information about that?

and I guess that means you really can't explain why Bush stopped looking for OBL in the spring of 2001?

I didn't think so.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 29, 2007)

maineman said:


> This message is hidden because glockmail is on your ignore list.
> 
> 
> 
> ....



Just because you choose to live with a burka on your head doesn't mean we all can't tell that you're an ugly old cuss.

And I've warned you about rolling around like that. You may end up with poop on your back and in your mouth like Cl-Taurus.


----------



## Paul Revere (Mar 29, 2007)

Clinton should stand trial with Cheney and Bush. Osama bin Laden is not responsible for 9/11, he is not wanted for 9/11. He is irrelevant.


----------



## boedicca (Mar 29, 2007)

Really?  Prove it.


----------



## maineman (Mar 29, 2007)

how are you coming on your research of these two questions, RSR?



maineman said:


> RSR:  any luck in finding all that evidence we had on Osama in May of '96?
> 
> Any explanation why Bush cancelled the predator drone surveillance flights that were looking for Osama?


----------



## Paul Revere (Mar 29, 2007)

boedicca said:


> Really?  Prove it.



Proof supplied:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm


----------



## glockmail (Mar 29, 2007)

Paul Revere said:


> Proof supplied:
> http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm



"IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD."


----------



## Paul Revere (Mar 29, 2007)

More on bin Laden not guilty for 9/11
http://www.viewzone.com/osama.html


----------



## Paul Revere (Mar 29, 2007)

glockmail said:


> "IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD."



Not in addition, but exclusive.


----------



## Paul Revere (Mar 29, 2007)

Qute from FBI Director Robert Mueller, in a speech at the Commonwealth Club on April 19, 2002, said: "_In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper - either here in the United States, or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere - that mentioned any aspect of the September 11 plot." _

*The evidence against Bin Laden, promised by Secretary of State Colin Powell on September 23, 2001, has yet to be made available to the public.* 

Not many people know that, after September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden issued a statement on tape that he had nothing to do with the attacks on America and that *such actions were against the teachings of Islam*. Americans were prevented from accessing this information because we were told that Osama could possibly have an embedded "secret code" in the tape that would alert other terrorists cells to "activate" and target other American cities.
Quote from Osama bin Laden: "_I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ... The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States." _


----------



## Paul Revere (Mar 29, 2007)

Paul Revere said:


> Osama bin Laden: "_ There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ... The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States." _



He is 100% correct concerning Israel controlling the US government.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 29, 2007)

Paul Revere said:


> Not in addition, but exclusive.


 I cut and pasted ver batim from your link.

Unbelievable how Liberals defend anything that is anti-American.


----------



## boedicca (Mar 29, 2007)

Paul Revere said:


> Proof supplied:
> http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm



That does nothing to disprove OBL's involvement in 9/11.


----------



## Paul Revere (Mar 29, 2007)

glockmail said:


> I cut and pasted ver batim from your link.
> 
> Unbelievable how Liberals defend anything that is anti-American.



Do you really believe that the FBI would post specifically that he is wanted for in connection with the bombings in Dar Salaam, Tanania, and Nairobi, Kenya, but fail to list the attacks on America September 11, 2001? Never has there been any evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11. Only a faked  confession tape, that the govt now prefers that you forget about.

I wasnt 20 minutes after the 2nd plane hit the south tower, that the media started building a case against Osama bin Laden and continued a  relentless media campaign with bald assertions to whip the country into a patriotic frenzy until the wars began . Right from the beginning  govt spokespeople started claiming there was overwhelming evidence against him. On Sept 23, 2001 Collin Powell said that the evidence would soon be made public. On March 24 the headline declared that the govt was going to provide an imminent report on bin Ladens guilt. Right away the Bush administration  began backtracking. They had no proof. Ari Fleischer came out claiming that Collin Powell had been misinterpreted. He claimed evidence was classified and could not be released. Can anyone seriously believe that if the administration had evidence directly tying bin Laden and his organization to the September 11 attacks, it would not rush to make it public?
Almost immediately, all media in the US stopped mentioning proof of guilt. It just became a we say its so, so trust us matter. But on April 19, 2002 FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted they had no proof. 

You sound like Red States Rules with that liberal crap. I am a realist.  I will not put myself in your stupid narrow classification trap. I am neither a liberal or conservative. My opinions have a wide range of definition and scope. Some of my opinions may fall closer to being conservative by definition, and some may fall closer to being liberal, but most will fall some where in between. I depend on facts, research, observation, and reasoning to form my opinions. I will  not  define myself as does my  narrow minded neighbor (his USMESSAGEBOARD name is being omitted here), and no it is not  Dead Snakes Mules, or Bed Flakes Blues, so dont even try to guess.


----------



## Paul Revere (Mar 29, 2007)

boedicca said:


> That does nothing to disprove OBL's involvement in 9/11.



Nor Prove.


----------



## Paul Revere (Mar 29, 2007)

Any one care to post evidence that Osama bin Laden attacked the United States  on Sept. 11, 2001?

I would like to review any evidence you can provide.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 29, 2007)

Paul Revere said:


> Do you really believe that the FBI would post specifically that he is wanted for in connection with the bombings in Dar Salaam, Tanania, and Nairobi, Kenya, but fail to list the attacks on America September 11, 2001? .....



Yes I do. They usually list and eventuall try the criminal for crimes that they have a slam-dunk case. Like Al Capone for tax evasion, and Saddam for some minor genocidal crime.

You claim "no evidence" but I'm sure there is plenty, just not beyond a resonable doubt. It doesn't matter anyway, since we are war, and the same standards of proof that we use for US citizens for criminal acts do not apply. The man will eventually be killed by us or someone else and that will be the end of him.


----------



## Paul Revere (Mar 29, 2007)

Consider this protection provided for CIA asset Tim Osman (Osama bin Laden), and ask yourself, WHY would the FBI provide protection for any one that is listed on their top ten most wanted list????

FBI PROTECTS OSAMA BIN LADENS RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN DOCUMENT RELEASE - Judicial Watch, the public interest group that fights government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has invoked privacy right protections on behalf of al Qaeda terror leader Osama bin Laden. In a September 24, 2003 declassified Secret FBI report obtained by Judicial Watch, the FBI invoked Exemption 6 under FOIA law on behalf of bin Laden, which permits the government to withhold all information about U.S. persons in personnel and medical files and similar files when the disclosure of such information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) (2000))...........

more at:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_5286.shtml


----------



## Paul Revere (Mar 29, 2007)

glockmail said:


> I'm sure there is plenty,
> 
> just not beyond a resonable doubt. It doesn't matter anyway, since we are war, and the same standards of proof that we use for US citizens for criminal acts do not apply. The man will eventually be killed by us or someone else and that will be the end of him.




OF Course it matters. The 9/11 attacks were a tremendous crime. The guilty deserve to punished.
If  there is plenty, provide even a smidgen, just a little piece that will make me say oops, I have been mistaken.
What could you possibly mean by, the same standards of proof that we use for US citizens for criminal acts do not apply?  What do you mean?
If he were alive, I believe we would know it. 
I am certain that he is dead. He didnt have much time left when the United States CIA agent met with him in July 4-14,2001, while he underwent treatment for kidney problems at the American Hospital in Dubai, United ArabEmirates, 
http://www.wanttoknow.info/011101londontimes (scroll down)
or the night of Sept. 10, 2001, when we knew he was in a hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan getting kidney dialysis treatment with US military support.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml
Or when the US let him get away in the Battle of Tora Bora, December 2001.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek
Being a CIA asset has its benefits.

You, dont read much do you?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 29, 2007)

Paul Revere said:


> ....provide even a smidgen, ....
> You, dont read much do you?



I'm not that interested in responding to someone more interested in insults than discussion.


----------



## Paul Revere (Mar 29, 2007)

glockmail said:


> I'm not that interested in responding to someone more interested in insults than discussion.



Was comparing you to Red States that big of an insult?

And this from someone with "Fuck off and pound sand"-Manfrommaine aka maineman" as a byline.

I don't believe you are any more capible of holding your own in a debate than Red States. All I've read from you is snide remarks and insults. 

You can't prove that Osama bin Laden is responsible for 9/11, because he wasn't.


----------



## Paul Revere (Mar 29, 2007)

Glockmail, you can dish it out, but you cant take it. Here is a sampling of 
Glockmail INSULT Quotes from this thread:

I've gone well beyond caring what you think, Mr. Shitferbrains
Just like I pwn you, shitferbrains!
I guess that's OK when you're a limp wristed liberal.
I've already given you 54 sources that prove the connection. Are you incapable of reading?
You can just tell them to fuck off and pound sand.
It looks like your the one who needs more amps on his wheelchair.
Perhaps your anus is bleeding from your trip to Greece.
I suggest you plug your wheel chair and pacemaker back in
Rome, Greece, there's homos for you at both places. I'm glad your experience gave you hemorrhoids. Try putting some salt on those as well.
How many brain cells do you have left after drinking yourself stoopid every night?
Love those lard on Wonder Bread sandwhiches. Shiver me timbers and pass the cabin boy around, men, men, men!
How about a lard sandwhich? On Wonder Bread, with mayonaise. Oh, and plenty of SALT
Crymainebaby left
I'm at war with that lying puke
... and his shrivelled dick
Did it get gangrenous and fall off
you're an ugly old cuss
You may end up with poop on your back and in your mouth like Cl-Taurus

And this Glock quote, It doesn't work that way, Salty. You made the assertion, now you prove it. I won't be holding my breath waiting. My reply to you is, I guess I wont wait for you to provide proof that you cant possibly provide even though you made the assertion that 9/11 was caused by bin Laden.

And this Glockmail post, So basically you have no prove and are asking me to believe you. Not a chance. That is my reply to you almost exactly, except I will change prove to proof.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 29, 2007)

Paul Revere said:


> Any one care to post evidence that Osama bin Laden attacked the United States  on Sept. 11, 2001?
> 
> I would like to review any evidence you can provide.




What is next from you, the video of OBL sitting around with his Atta laughing about the upcoming 9-11 was actually shot in the basement of the White House and directed by Karl Rove?


http://www.nbc4.tv/news/9980625/detail.html


----------



## Dirt McGirt (Mar 29, 2007)

Paul Revere said:


> OF Course it matters. The 9/11 attacks were a tremendous crime. The guilty deserve to punished.
> If  there is plenty, provide even a smidgen, just a little piece that will make me say oops, I have been mistaken.


Checked out the links. None of them prove anything.



> What could you possibly mean by, the same standards of proof that we use for US citizens for criminal acts do not apply?  What do you mean?
> If he were alive, I believe we would know it.
> I am certain that he is dead. He didnt have much time left when the United States CIA agent met with him in July 4-14,2001, while he underwent treatment for kidney problems at the American Hospital in Dubai, United ArabEmirates,
> http://www.wanttoknow.info/011101londontimes (scroll down)



Le Figaro never confirmed the sources for the story in Dubai. This is a paper in France and the accuracy of the translation has been questioned. The credibility is also taken into account since they also reported that Bin Laden had died, only to retract the story.



> or the night of Sept. 10, 2001, when we knew he was in a hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan getting kidney dialysis treatment with US military support.
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml


You misread the CBS news story. It's claims are dependent on a Pakistani nurse who says she saw Bin Laden in a Pakistan hospital. There was no claim that US military officials were there or even knew that he was there.



> Or when the US let him get away in the Battle of Tora Bora, December 2001.
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek
> Being a CIA asset has its benefits.


And the US letting Bin Laden slip away at Tora Bora was attributed to a lack of cooperation and communication between CENTCOM and the CIA. The CIA operations officer making the claim that we let Bin Laden get away wasn't even on the ground and he never implied that we deliberately let him go. Gary Berntsen, the CIA operations chief, was critical of Rumsfeld and the US military for letting Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora. If Bin Laden were working for the CIA, why would Bernsten, who had been working with the CIA since 1982, be upset that Bin Laden got away? If Bin Laden were really in cahoots with the CIA as an asset then why would a senior CIA officer even make that account available to the public in the first place?

Your conspiracy theories have holes, lots of 'em.


----------



## Paul Revere (Mar 29, 2007)

red states rule said:


> What is next from you, the video of OBL sitting around with his Atta laughing about the upcoming 9-11 was actually shot in the basement of the White House and directed by Karl Rove?
> 
> 
> http://www.nbc4.tv/news/9980625/detail.html



Yes, a fake with a political timed motivation. Even Mohammed Attas father denied it was real and the main stream media admits that the tape was released not by Al-Qaeda but by the U.S. intelligence apparatus.

Are you going to tell me that all of the pictures here are the same guy. 





Jarrah #1: Authentic photo of alleged hijacker Ziad Jarrah taken in 1996. [BBC]
Jarrah #2: FBI Photo of Jarrah
Jarrah #3: Passport photo of "Ziad Jarrah" found in the wreckage of Flight 93.
Jarrah #4: Another Passport photo of Jarrah [CNN]
Jarrah #5: Student visa photo of "Ziad Jarrah".

These clearly aren't the same guy. The passport found in the wreckage does not show the face of the Jarrah in the latest video release who is Jarrah #1.
And imagine that, his passport was found, not much else, no passenger seats, no engines... the plane done got sucked right into the ground.... never done happened before... 9/11 was a magical day for strange things. Buildings falling down from fire, Building seven that wasn't even hit by a plane and had only a few small fires fell neatly down, and only 23 minutes after the media started claiming that it had collapsed from fire. Yes, that was a strange day for magical mystery stuff, just like when a bullet went thru JFK anf stopped and changed directions.

Yes neighbor, the tape is a FAKE! So was the bin Laden confession tape with the Fat bin Laden, that your gov't claimed they magically found with this fake bin Laden confessing.


----------



## Paul Revere (Mar 29, 2007)

To Dirt McGirt

Quote:
Le Figaro never confirmed the sources for the story in Dubai. This is a paper in France and the accuracy of the translation has been questioned. The credibility is also taken into account since they also reported that Bin Laden had died, only to retract the story.

 Answer: 
Not true  Le Figaro did confirm the story. Are you implying that because the paper is French there accuracy is questionable?  HA! HA! What a laugh, along with the difficulties of translating French to English! 
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html

Quote:
or the night of Sept. 10, 2001, when we knew he was in a hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan getting kidney dialysis treatment with US military support.

Answer:
You are correct, that should be the Pakistan military support. They were there.
Besides the nurse, the article also credited Pakistan intelligence sources.

Quote:
The CIA operations officer making the claim that we let Bin Laden get away wasn't even on the ground and he never implied that we deliberately let him go. Gary Berntsen, the CIA operations chief, was critical of Rumsfeld and the US military for letting Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora. If Bin Laden were working for the CIA, why would Bernsten, who had been working with the CIA since 1982, be upset that Bin Laden got away? If Bin Laden were really in cahoots with the CIA as an asset then why would a senior CIA officer even make that account available to the public in the first place?

Answer:
Why would a senior CIA officer even make that account available to the public in the first place? Most likely because his was critical of Rumsfeld. Bad blood, writing a book, some or all. I really dont care. They let him get away if he was at Tora bora. If he wasnt there, they didnt. I am certain beyond any doubt that he did not carry out 9/11.

No holes, just facts. I may slip on a minor detail, but the truth remains factual, a  conspiracy did take place. It was a Neo-con New World Order conspiracy.  I could provide links and videos that prove I am correct. Many have provide proof to Red States on other forums, yet he refused to look. 

Would You?

Here is a good starting points:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6952102263921897950&q=911the+greatest+lie&hl=en


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2924848130992296779&q=take+back+911&hl=en


----------



## Emmett (Mar 29, 2007)

I thinkOsama is the father of Anna Nicole's child, don't you Paul!


----------



## Dirt McGirt (Mar 29, 2007)

Paul Revere said:


> Not true  Le Figaro did confirm the story. Are you implying that because the paper is French there accuracy is questionable?  HA! HA! What a laugh, along with the difficulties of translating French to English!
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html


All you have is a translated version of the French article. The sources were never revealed and everyone implicated denies it.

"The American hospital in Dubai emphatically denied that Bin Laden was a patient there.

Washington last night also denied the story."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html

But even if you buy into the Le Figaro account and translation, then please tell me, what was the name of the CIA agent who allegedly met with Bin Laden in Dubai? And what was the detail of the meeting?



> You are correct, that should be the Pakistan military support. They were there.
> Besides the nurse, the article also credited Pakistan intelligence sources.


So what you're really saying is that Pakistan was helping Bin Laden? LMAO, that's not a conspiracy theory, that's echoing what many on the right and left have been saying from the beginning. Next.



> Why would a senior CIA officer even make that account available to the public in the first place? Most likely because his was critical of Rumsfeld. Bad blood, writing a book, some or all. I really don&#8217;t care. They let him get away if he was at Tora bora. If he wasn&#8217;t there, they didn&#8217;t. I am certain beyond any doubt that he did not carry out 9/11.


How does Tora Bora clear him of any involvement in 9/11???? Please explain the logic in that.



> No holes, just facts. I may slip on a minor detail, but the truth remains factual, a  conspiracy did take place. It was a Neo-con New World Order conspiracy.


Slipping up on a minor detail isn't factual by definition. You haven't proven any conspiracy. You provided three links and none of them support your position that Bin Laden didn't mastermind or participate in 9/11.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 30, 2007)

Libs have alot kook conspiracy theories. 9-11, Katrina, and Sen Tim Johnson. Shrinks in the US have been doing a brisk business since 2000, and they should continue to do well until 2009

Then when Rudy is sworn in, libs will be even more depressed and enraged


----------



## glockmail (Mar 30, 2007)

Paul Revere said:


> Was comparing you to Red States that big of an insult?.....


Not in the least. Suggesting that I did not read was.


----------



## Dirt McGirt (Mar 30, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Libs have alot kook conspiracy theories. 9-11, Katrina, and Sen Tim Johnson.


Revere and V for Vendetta are extreme right wingers though. Their level of distrust with the government far exceeds your partisan views. You seem to be content with the government fucking you in the ass as long as it's Republican controlled. I'm under the impression that Revere hates the government regardless of which party is in control.


----------



## Bullypulpit (Mar 31, 2007)

Let's get back on topic. 

With two US carrier battle groups engaging in military exercises within the restrictive confines of the Persian Gulf, the likelihood of war with Iran increases dramatically. With these exercises going on in the same waters as are patrolled by the Iranian navy, any incident could spark a war, whether by accident or design.

Given that the wheels are coming off of the Bush Administration cart, Bush is just squirrelly enough to pull the trigger and start another war.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 31, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> Let's get back on topic.
> 
> With two US carrier battle groups engaging in military exercises within the restrictive confines of the Persian Gulf, the likelihood of war with Iran increases dramatically. With these exercises going on in the same waters as are patrolled by the Iranian navy, any incident could spark a war, whether by accident or design.
> 
> Given that the wheels are coming off of the Bush Administration cart, Bush is just squirrelly enough to pull the trigger and start another war.



I do not find it surprising the rise in arrogrance in Iran with the Dems coming to power. Listening to Mad Halfbright on how the Brits need to "talk" and "reason" with Iran and let the UN handle things

Terrorists and US enemies are giddy over the libs winning in Novemeber and they know how they can now get away with alot more shit


----------



## glockmail (Mar 31, 2007)

Bullypulpit said:


> Let's get back on topic.
> 
> With two US carrier battle groups engaging in military exercises within the restrictive confines of the Persian Gulf, the likelihood of war with Iran increases dramatically. With these exercises going on in the same waters as are patrolled by the Iranian navy, any incident could spark a war, whether by accident or design.
> 
> Given that the wheels are coming off of the Bush Administration cart, Bush is just squirrelly enough to pull the trigger and start another war.



You're premise that "the wheels are coming off of the Bush Administration cart" and is an incentive for war is false and makes it difficult to take your argument seriously.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 31, 2007)

glockmail said:


> You're premise that "the wheels are coming off of the Bush Administration cart" and is an incentive for war is false and makes it difficult to take your argument seriously.



BP seems to be in the Nutty Rosie camp


----------



## glockmail (Mar 31, 2007)

red states rule said:


> BP seems to be in the Nutty Rosie camp


No doubt.


----------



## red states rule (Mar 31, 2007)

glockmail said:


> No doubt.



The liberal media is running to her defense


O'Reilly Attacks The View's O'Donnell Factor
Fri Mar 30, 7:22 PM

 O'Boy.

Rosie O'Donnell was sucked into the No Spin Zone Thursday when Fox News host Bill O'Reilly questioned whether ABC should fire the morning chat maven over a posting on her personal blog and remarks she made on The View concerning the recent capture of 15 British sailors by the Iranian military.

On her Website, O'Donnell alleged that the British strayed into Iranian waters on purpose to help bolster the United States' government's increasingly hostile position toward the Middle Eastern nation.

"False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities," the coiner of the phrase "cutie-patootie" wrote Wednesday.

Then, in a clip from The View replayed on The O'Reilly Factor Thursday, O'Donnell seemingly expresses sympathy for the very people the Bush administration (and, largely, Fox News) is trying to convince the American public need to be defeated.

"I think they've been dehumanized to the point where they're not people. They're just the enemy," O'Donnell said. "They're terrorists. They have two choices, faith or fear. Faith or fear. That's your choice.

"You can walk through life believing in the goodness of the world or walk through life afraid of anyone who thinks differently than you and try to convert them to your way of thinkingDon't fear the terrorists. They're mothers and fathers."

Well, no one's going to tell millions of red-blooded Americans not to fear the terrorists on O'Reilly's watch.

"'Don't fear the terrorists.' The question is what should ABC do?" the right-wing pundit inquired of his guests-via-satellite, fellow Fox News analyst Bernard Goldberg and American University scholar Jane Hall. "Remember, ABC fired Bill Maher [who hosted Politically Incorrect at the time] after he said the 9/11 killers had courage."

O'Reilly went on to suggest that the situation over at The View is rapidly deteriorating now that the show has O'Donnell's vehemently liberal rhetoric dominating the relatively low-key conservative opining of cohost Elisabeth Hasselbeck, and that O'Donnell's politicizing is contributing to a ratings downturn. (After contributing to a ratings uptick with that big to-do with Donald Trump, of course.)

Hall, in turn, suggested that O'Donnell might be the only talk show host on broadcast TV right now representing the left wing so fervently on a daily basis.

ABC "said the show represents as variety of viewpoints," O'Reilly said. "There's a platform for free and open exchange of ideas. I don't believe that to be true. I don't believe Ann Coulter will get a program any time soon on ABC."

Ouch. Being compared to Ann Coulter is just no fun at all.

"Here you have young Elisabeth Hasselbeck getting hectored by Rosie O'Donnell and Joy Behar, two of the most far-left women in the United States of America. But it's beyond that," O'Reilly continued.  

"These women aren't speaking for themselves. And I think both of you understand what I'm saying. They're spitting out the worst propaganda that is fed to them by far-left American haters on the net."

"And that's why I say, Bill, that the real danger is that they're mainstreaming this hateful nonsense. That's what this is about," Goldberg said, but then he split with Hall, who said that she didn't think O'Donnell had the right to go on TV and spout off irresponsibly. "That's not a First Amendment right," Hall said.

"Of course she does," Goldberg insisted. "Well, it is. It is. Joy Behar has every right to go on the air and compare Donald Rumsfeld to Hitler and I have every right to say I'll never watch that show even if somebody has gun to my head. And that's what more American people should do. They should say these people are not intelligent and they don't make any sense so don't watch."

Just so long as no one's going overboard with his metaphors here.

Meanwhile, Friday's installment of The View was taped before the Rosie episode of The O'Reilly Factor aired, so we'll have to wait to hear what, if anything, O'Donnell has to say about O'Reilly, who was a guest on the a.m. chatfest in October. (O'Donnell did interrupt a lot, but she raised her hand before speaking more than usual.)

Well, The View sure has been mixing it up in 2007.

At least O'Reilly knows he has an ally in Donald Trump, who told David Letterman in an interview set to air Friday on The Late Show that, although he doesn't wholly blame Barbara Walters for siding with O'Donnell during their Miss USA-fueled feud, the veteran newswoman is fired, if you will.

"Barbara did not speak the truth and I didn't like it," Trump said. "She was trying to protect Rosie. She just said things that weren't so and therefore I sort of wrote her off my list. She's off the list."

"Rosie, as you know, went crazy at the prospect of my giving [Miss USA 2006 Tara Conner] a second chance," Trump continued.

"Rosie is sort of taking over the show from Barbara," he said. "It was sad to watch what was happening. But Rosie, they say, almost beat her up in the green room, and Barbara went out and did things she shouldn't do. I felt badly for Barbara. In a way, I feel that Barbara was just trying to keep the whole thing together. I don't totally blame her."

A rumble in the green room? Wait until O'Reilly gets a load of that one.

http://www.comcast.net/entertainment/index.jsp?fn=2007/03/30/231882.html&cvqh=itn_oreilly


----------



## Paul Revere (Mar 31, 2007)

Obvious none of you care that YOUR government hired somebody to play the role of Osama bin Laden and take credit for the 9/11 attacks. That lie alone would be enough to make anyone with more that one brain cell set up and think.

Go on with your silly little circle jerk. Keep up your silly cyber backpatting for being clueless.

I have known that RSR was a brainless moron for years. Now I see that he isn't alone. I used to think that he was a fluke, that he was the way he is because his parents used him as a basketball and stored him under the kitchen sink with the chemicals. It is scary that he seems to have a twin in Glockmail.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 31, 2007)

Paul Revere said:


> Obvious none of you care that YOUR government hired somebody to play the role of Osama bin Laden and take credit for the 9/11 attacks. That lie alone would be enough to make anyone with more that one brain cell set up and think.
> 
> Go on with your silly little circle jerk. Keep up your silly cyber backpatting for being clueless.
> 
> I have known that RSR was a brainless moron for years. Now I see that he isn't alone. I used to think that he was a fluke, that he was the way he is because his parents used him as a basketball and stored him under the kitchen sink with the chemicals. It is scary that he seems to have a twin in Glockmail.



Crackhead


----------



## boedicca (Mar 31, 2007)

Paul Revere said:


> Obvious none of you care that YOUR government hired somebody to play the role of Osama bin Laden and take credit for the 9/11 attacks.




Oh.  My.  Gawd.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How do you know that somebody in AQ didn't hire somebody to play the U.S. government in order to pretend to hire somebody to play OBL?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 2, 2007)

boedicca said:


> Oh.  My.  Gawd.
> 
> ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> How do you know that somebody in AQ didn't hire somebody to play the U.S. government in order to pretend to hire somebody to play OBL?



It was the voices in his head that gave him the information


----------



## Louie (Apr 6, 2007)

When I think of journalistic excellence I think of Bill O'Reilly, not.
How anyone can take that cook seriously is mind-boggling...


----------



## CTRLALTDEL (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It was the voices in his head that gave him the information



You mean like Bush invading/occupying Iraq because GAWD told him to do so??  LOL!!!!!!


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Apr 6, 2007)

This is god: dont not mock me: I told him to do so, their are some fine women in iraq


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Apr 6, 2007)

This is god: it wasnt the jews who did 9/11, it was geico!! and that dam gecko


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Apr 6, 2007)

I must say two things, the media gave rosie almost a free pass, except for o'reilly, but when ann coulter did something well, she was burned at the stake.

The media gave howard dean a free pass, when he said horrible things about the republican party, but when lott was kissing that 100 year olds but,, oh hell no.

There is liberal bias in the media, maybe not only liberal bias, but common, liberal bias vs conservative bias. with all due respect 80-20 or 70-30 percentage wise to the left.


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Apr 6, 2007)

President bush may not be the one who has to go to war with iran, it could be the next president who could be a Dem.

Look, im not saying i want war, but do you want iran with a ton of nukes?

They could take over the entire middle east, by nuking israel, and threatening all their other neigbors. At all costs, we cannot afford iran with nukes.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

Paul Revere said:


> Obvious none of you care that YOUR government hired somebody to play the role of Osama bin Laden and take credit for the 9/11 attacks. That lie alone would be enough to make anyone with more that one brain cell set up and think.
> 
> Go on with your silly little circle jerk. Keep up your silly cyber backpatting for being clueless.
> 
> I have known that RSR was a brainless moron for years. Now I see that he isn't alone. I used to think that he was a fluke, that he was the way he is because his parents used him as a basketball and stored him under the kitchen sink with the chemicals. It is scary that he seems to have a twin in Glockmail.



Why not go back to your padded room and get the help you so depseratly need?

Or perhaps in the delivery room, your mom pushed to hard - you shot out - and hit the hospital wall head first

That would explain alot


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

Louie said:


> When I think of journalistic excellence I think of Bill O'Reilly, not.
> How anyone can take that cook seriously is mind-boggling...



Jealous since he destroys Keith on PMSNBC by a 3 - 1 margin?


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Jealous since he destroys Keith on PMSNBC by a 3 - 1 margin?




that only is proof that there are a lot of morons like you who watch cable television.  Do you really want to equate television RATINGS to the quality of intellectual content of television shows?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> that only is proof that there are a lot of morons like you who watch cable television.  Do you really want to equate television RATINGS to the quality of intellectual content of television shows?



You seem to be jealous as well. Libs love to talk about opinion polls that go their way - if seems people CHOOSE to watch Fox News over the left wing cable networks

That is what really pisses off libs - when people do not choose what libs want them to choose


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You seem to be jealous as well. Libs love to talk about opinion polls that go their way - if seems people CHOOSE to watch Fox News over the left wing cable networks
> 
> That is what really pisses off libs - when people do not choose what libs want them to choose



I could care less what people watch... I just don't think that what they watch is proof of quality.  do you?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> I could care less what people watch... I just don't think that what they watch is proof of quality.  do you?



Considering the liberal cable networks are losing tbadly o Fox News, I am not surprised you dismiss the ratings


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Considering the liberal cable networks are losing tbadly o Fox News, I am not surprised you dismiss the ratings



I do not "dismiss" them...I just do not consider "ratings" to be a measure of "quality"...only "popularity".  You DO understand the difference, do you not?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> I do not "dismiss" them...I just do not consider "ratings" to be a measure of "quality"...only "popularity".  You DO understand the difference, do you not?



According to the viewers, your liberal cable news networks do have offer much in quality and are not popular


----------



## Annie (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> I do not "dismiss" them...I just do not consider "ratings" to be a measure of "quality"...only "popularity".  You DO understand the difference, do you not?



and elections?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> and elections?



Kathy, to libs, when Republcians win election - the election must have been stolen - or the people were to stupid to understand the complex issues

However, when libs win the election, the people spoke and conservatives need to accept the decison and shut the hell up


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> and elections?




unfortunately for both sides, elections are a measure of popularity and not quality.


----------



## Annie (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Kathy, to libs, when Republcians win election - the election must have been stolen - or the people were to stupid to understand the complex issues
> 
> However, when libs win the election, the people spoke and conservatives need to accept the decison and shut the hell up



Thanks, but I can do my own analysis of the elections and spin.


----------



## Annie (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> unfortunately for both sides, elections are a measure of popularity and not quality.



So you would put what in place of?


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Thanks, but I can do my own analysis of the elections and spin.



Just offering what libs say when they lose/win elections

After Pres Reagan won 49 states in 1984 - libs said the voters were taken in by slick marketing and packaging


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Just offering what libs say when they lose/win elections
> 
> After Pres Reagan won 49 states in 1984 - libs said the voters were taken in by slick marketing and packaging



what "spin" do YOU put on the ass whipping the republicans got in '06?


----------



## Annie (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Just offering what libs say when they lose/win elections
> 
> After Pres Reagan won 49 states in 1984 - libs said the voters were taken in by slick marketing and packaging



Seriously, please do not use me to put forth your spin.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> what "spin" do YOU put on the ass whipping the republicans got in '06?



As I posted before, Republicans lost because they walked away from Ronald Reagan conservatism.

They did not cut spending, they did not secure the boarder, they did not fight for MORE tax cuts

Thank God libs are now acting like liberals.  The prok continues to fly, they want to surrender in Iraq, they want to give illegals MORE benefitrs that should only go to US citizens, and they want to raise taxes.


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> As I posted before, Republicans lost because they walked away from Ronald Reagan conservatism.
> 
> They did not cut spending, they did not secure the boarder, they did not fight for MORE tax cuts
> 
> Thank God libs are now acting like liberals.  The prok continues to fly, they want to surrender in Iraq, they want to give illegals MORE benefitrs that should only go to US citizens, and they want to raise taxes.




nice "spin"....

just as I expected.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> nice "spin"....
> 
> just as I expected.



Facts - something you never understand


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Facts - something you never understand




no...spin...every exit poll suggest that the war in Iraq was the number one issue for voters...and they tossed the republicans out of the majority in both houses because of it...and your spinning to avoid that fact is just that


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...spin...every exit poll suggest that the war in Iraq was the number one issue for voters...and they tossed the republicans out of the majority in both houses because of it...and your spinning to avoid that fact is just that



So you are saying the voters want the US to lose the war?

Surrendering like the libs are demanding is not waht the voters voted for

They left Republicans because of what they were doing and not doing. Libs are repeating the mistake


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So you are saying the voters want the US to lose the war?
> 
> Surrendering like the libs are demanding is not waht the voters voted for
> 
> They left Republicans because of what they were doing and not doing. Libs are repeating the mistake



I am saying that the voters were sick and tired of how the republicans had mishandled the war and how they had misled us into it in the first place.

and, you need to understand this: the democrats really don't give a shit if folks like YOU think they are making mistakes.  Democrats don't EVER rely on folks like YOU to get elected, so your opinions really are worth about as much to democrats as a bucket of warm spit.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am saying that the voters were sick and tired of how the republicans had mishandled the war and how they had misled us into it in the first place.
> 
> and, you need to understand this: the democrats really don't give a shit if folks like YOU think they are making mistakes.  Democrats don't EVER rely on folks like YOU to get elected, so your opinions really are worth about as much to democrats as a bucket of warm spit.



So the answer is to give up and turn the country over to the terrorists?

Again, if Bush lied so did the Dems

Libs never care what other people think. Libs suffer from a huge superiority complex


----------



## maineman (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So the answer is to give up and turn the country over to the terrorists?
> 
> Again, if Bush lied so did the Dems
> 
> Libs never care what other people think. Libs suffer from a huge superiority complex



1.  NO... I want to turn the country over to the Iraqis.  The shiite majority is not about to give up control of their country to foreign sunnis.

2.  No democrat ever ordered our troops into Iraq.  No democrat ever said that Saddam was working with Osama bin Laden.

3.  Liberals care what people think, we just don't care what asshole conservative gadflies like YOU think.


----------



## CTRLALTDEL (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So the answer is to give up and turn the country over to the terrorists?





Redstates, where do you get this idea that terrahwrists are gonna take over Iraq?  Do you think the IRAQIS are just gonna ROLL OVER AND PLAY DEAD???  Unless you view Iraqis as terrahwrists.


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

CTRLALTDEL said:


> Redstates, where do you get this idea that terrahwrists are gonna take over Iraq?  Do you think the IRAQIS are just gonna ROLL OVER AND PLAY DEAD???  Unless you view Iraqis as terrahwrists.



Whio thought Nazis would take over most of Europe?


----------



## CTRLALTDEL (Apr 6, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Whio thought Nazis would take over most of Europe?



Nazi's were a WORLD POWER.  Al Qaida??????  Their leader lives in a CAVE!!!


----------



## red states rule (Apr 6, 2007)

CTRLALTDEL said:


> Nazi's were a WORLD POWER.  Al Qaida??????  Their leader lives in a CAVE!!!



and if the libs "Surrender At All Costs" bill ever sees the light of day, terrorists and Iran will take over Iraq.

They will have an entire country, oil revenues, and a safe haven to conduct their operations

Hitler was an unemployed painter and paper hanger and he turned to be a force to be delt with - at the cost of 50 million lives


----------

