red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #141
dmp said:
How dare you confront a liberal with the words of his own fellow liberals
What a low down dirty tactic
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Abu Musab Al-zarqawi Killed In Iraq
- Thread starter red states rule
- Start date
How dare you confront a liberal with the words of his own fellow liberals
What a low down dirty tactic
Abbey Normal
Senior Member
rtwngAvngr said:Mariner, you collossal dipstick, is it even possible in your tiny mind that saddam's wmd were moved? Or does that simple possibility destroy your houre of cards logic to the extent that your feeble intellect must deny it?
I'd like to see an answer to this.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #143
Spinning Their Way to Defeat
June 9th, 2006
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5564
The first reaction that most Americans had to news that the Jordanian born terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi was killed in a precision bombing raid by the United States Air Force yesterday was one of elation mixed with a grim satisfaction that a huge obstacle to bringing peace and security to Iraq was permanently removed. It was one of those moments that has occurred so rarely in this war; a triumph of good over evil and a clear cut victory for the United States for which all Americans should be thankful.
Not so fast, say many on the left. Former Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich was one of the first to try and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, said Zarqawi was a small part of a growing anti-American insurgency and that its time to get out.
Were there for all the wrong reasons, Mr. Kucinich said.
Although the initial reaction to the news by the Democratic party leadership was suitably positive Senate Minority Leader Reid was particularly fulsome in his praise of the military as the day went on, a curious thing happened; al Zarqawi shrank in size and importance until by about mid-afternoon, many on the left were asking the question So wheres Osama? This Reuters headline was echoed a thousand times on liberal websites and left wing talk radio shows:
Zarqawi found, but bin Laden still eludes US.
That the media began to spin the story every which way from Sunday was no surprise. In any other context, their desperate attempts to deflect attention from the death of Zarqawi and put the emphasis on the unsuccessful hunt for bin Landen could be seen as a pitiful attempt at comedy, so riotously off kilter their killjoy attitude became by days end. It makes one wonder what kind of headlines they would have generated during World War II following the death of Hitler:
German Chancellor dead: No Effect on Quagmire in the Pacific Seen.
In truth, it became de riguer on the left as the day went on to not only try and downplay the death of al Qaeda in Iraqs most visible and violent terrorist but to actually posit the notion that the bloodthirsty jihadist was an invention of the US government, that he really wasnt all that important a cog in the insurgencys machine of death, and that the Bush Administration used him to try and connect Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda.
The Huffington Post gave this theme a nice boost:
Well, for one thing, Zarqawi was an invented menace. Before the great Iraq experiment in democracy delivered not by necessity but by bullets and bombs (as well as WMD pretexts), Zarqawi was about as popular as Carrot Top. No one knew who he was, kind of like no one knows who else besides Kobe Bryant is on the Los Angeles Lakers. As terrorists go, he was what sportswriters might call a scrub. But once he got in the way of the Bush administrations crusade on the banks of the Tigris, he quickly became public enemy number one. Or as Iraqs prime minister Nuri al-Maliki explained, a godfather of terrorism.
Also particularly helpful in this effort was The Atlantic Online which published a curiously sympathetic profile of Zarqawi that had been in the works for weeks entitled The Short, Violent Life of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a typically earnest liberal effort to humanize the enemy while downplaying his significance in the insurgency. The 5,000 word article reminded one of similar efforts to humanize death row inmates in the United States by touring their hometown, talking to people who knew them when they were growing up, and trying to get at the root causes of their violent actions.
The problem, of course, as with death row inmates, is that there are no root causes to the actions of people like Zarqawi. They are dead inside; empty husks of humanity without a glimmer of conscience or a flicker of compassion. They are sociopathic monsters who deserve the worst that we can do to them.Generating sympathy for such a bloodthirsty killer was an admittedly daunting task which is why the press and the left then turned their attention to the notion of Zarqawis insignificance and the idea that he was a creation of the Bush Administrations efforts to make al Qaeda seem more dangerous than it really is. In this, they were aided by the father of one of Zarqawis victims, Michael Berg whose son Nick was beheaded by the terrorist in 2004.
Mr. Berg, a genuine pacifist and liberal activist didnt disappoint. He was widely quoted as comparing George Bush to Zarqawi saying
His death will incite a new wave of revenge. George Bush and al-Zarqawi are two men who believe in revenge.
Berg is running for Congress on the Green Party ticket in Delaware and one could rightly question not his motives, but the motives of the press in seeking out his sure-fire anti-Bush response. I suppose this is what the press refers to as balanced reporting.
But in order to have balance, there have to be two sides presented. By the end of the day, there were two sides alright the side that said that Bush was a monster and the side that presented the President as incompetent liar. The latter theme was helped along by a story circulated by NBC News that prior to the war, the Bush Administration failed to attack and kill the terrorist mastermind:
In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.
The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.
Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didnt do it, said Michael OHanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.
The story points out that the military had drawn up strike plans 3 different times to take out Zarqawis lab but was blocked each time by a White House who believed that any military action would undercut their efforts to build a coalition to take out Saddams whole rotten regime.
Still spinning furiously, the left advanced the theory that Bushs rush to war prevented us from killing Zarqawi in 2002. Leaving aside the notion that killing the terrorist at his lab would have been any more successful than President Clintons efforts to kill Osama Bin Laden by bombing his training camp in Afghanistan, one notices the flip-flop by the left immediately; if Saddam had no ties to terrorists, how is it possible that we missed anyone? And if he did indeed have ties to terrorist groups, doesnt that justify the invasion and subsequent liberation of Iraq?
If I were you, I wouldnt say any of that too loudly in the presence of a liberal. His head is likely to explode.
The clear message by days end was that the death of Zarqawi didnt mean a tinkers damn. Representative Pete Stark led the charge, calling the killing of the jihadist, in effect, a political ploy:
Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war.
This is just to cover Bushs [rear] so he doesnt have to answer for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. Iraq is still a messget out.
Stark and Kucinich evidently didnt get the memo on how to react to the good news of al Zarqawis death. For in the end, the Democrats downplaying this victory could cost them dearly at the polls.
Just yesterday, an AP-Ipsos poll was released showing support for the war at an all time low. One wonders what that same poll might be saying now that the news of Zarqawis death has spread far and wide as well as the equally good news that the Iraqis have finally gotten their act together and finished forming a government by naming the Defense, and Interior Ministers as well as the chief National Security adviser. I daresay that the American people are a little more upbeat about our prospects for total victory in Iraq now that these two very important pieces are in place.
It wont be a large bump in the Presidents numbers, but it will probably be significant. And this, of course, what all the spinning and backtracking was about in the first place. Any rise in the Presidents poll numbers will give the lie to the lefts talking points that Bush is finished. And with the Iraqis now ready to finally try and get a handle on the admittedly grim internal security situation, there is a very real chance that by November, significant improvements will be visible thus undercutting the Democratic critique of the war substantially.
What will the American people make of this effort to downplay such a significant victory? One would think that they would reward the Democrats for their loyalty by refusing to give them the responsibility for winning a war whose prospects for victory took such a large step forward yesterday.
Rick Moran is the proprietor of the webiste Right Wing Nut House, and a frequent contributor to The American Thinker.
June 9th, 2006
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5564
The first reaction that most Americans had to news that the Jordanian born terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi was killed in a precision bombing raid by the United States Air Force yesterday was one of elation mixed with a grim satisfaction that a huge obstacle to bringing peace and security to Iraq was permanently removed. It was one of those moments that has occurred so rarely in this war; a triumph of good over evil and a clear cut victory for the United States for which all Americans should be thankful.
Not so fast, say many on the left. Former Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich was one of the first to try and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, said Zarqawi was a small part of a growing anti-American insurgency and that its time to get out.
Were there for all the wrong reasons, Mr. Kucinich said.
Although the initial reaction to the news by the Democratic party leadership was suitably positive Senate Minority Leader Reid was particularly fulsome in his praise of the military as the day went on, a curious thing happened; al Zarqawi shrank in size and importance until by about mid-afternoon, many on the left were asking the question So wheres Osama? This Reuters headline was echoed a thousand times on liberal websites and left wing talk radio shows:
Zarqawi found, but bin Laden still eludes US.
That the media began to spin the story every which way from Sunday was no surprise. In any other context, their desperate attempts to deflect attention from the death of Zarqawi and put the emphasis on the unsuccessful hunt for bin Landen could be seen as a pitiful attempt at comedy, so riotously off kilter their killjoy attitude became by days end. It makes one wonder what kind of headlines they would have generated during World War II following the death of Hitler:
German Chancellor dead: No Effect on Quagmire in the Pacific Seen.
In truth, it became de riguer on the left as the day went on to not only try and downplay the death of al Qaeda in Iraqs most visible and violent terrorist but to actually posit the notion that the bloodthirsty jihadist was an invention of the US government, that he really wasnt all that important a cog in the insurgencys machine of death, and that the Bush Administration used him to try and connect Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda.
The Huffington Post gave this theme a nice boost:
Well, for one thing, Zarqawi was an invented menace. Before the great Iraq experiment in democracy delivered not by necessity but by bullets and bombs (as well as WMD pretexts), Zarqawi was about as popular as Carrot Top. No one knew who he was, kind of like no one knows who else besides Kobe Bryant is on the Los Angeles Lakers. As terrorists go, he was what sportswriters might call a scrub. But once he got in the way of the Bush administrations crusade on the banks of the Tigris, he quickly became public enemy number one. Or as Iraqs prime minister Nuri al-Maliki explained, a godfather of terrorism.
Also particularly helpful in this effort was The Atlantic Online which published a curiously sympathetic profile of Zarqawi that had been in the works for weeks entitled The Short, Violent Life of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a typically earnest liberal effort to humanize the enemy while downplaying his significance in the insurgency. The 5,000 word article reminded one of similar efforts to humanize death row inmates in the United States by touring their hometown, talking to people who knew them when they were growing up, and trying to get at the root causes of their violent actions.
The problem, of course, as with death row inmates, is that there are no root causes to the actions of people like Zarqawi. They are dead inside; empty husks of humanity without a glimmer of conscience or a flicker of compassion. They are sociopathic monsters who deserve the worst that we can do to them.Generating sympathy for such a bloodthirsty killer was an admittedly daunting task which is why the press and the left then turned their attention to the notion of Zarqawis insignificance and the idea that he was a creation of the Bush Administrations efforts to make al Qaeda seem more dangerous than it really is. In this, they were aided by the father of one of Zarqawis victims, Michael Berg whose son Nick was beheaded by the terrorist in 2004.
Mr. Berg, a genuine pacifist and liberal activist didnt disappoint. He was widely quoted as comparing George Bush to Zarqawi saying
His death will incite a new wave of revenge. George Bush and al-Zarqawi are two men who believe in revenge.
Berg is running for Congress on the Green Party ticket in Delaware and one could rightly question not his motives, but the motives of the press in seeking out his sure-fire anti-Bush response. I suppose this is what the press refers to as balanced reporting.
But in order to have balance, there have to be two sides presented. By the end of the day, there were two sides alright the side that said that Bush was a monster and the side that presented the President as incompetent liar. The latter theme was helped along by a story circulated by NBC News that prior to the war, the Bush Administration failed to attack and kill the terrorist mastermind:
In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.
The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.
Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didnt do it, said Michael OHanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.
The story points out that the military had drawn up strike plans 3 different times to take out Zarqawis lab but was blocked each time by a White House who believed that any military action would undercut their efforts to build a coalition to take out Saddams whole rotten regime.
Still spinning furiously, the left advanced the theory that Bushs rush to war prevented us from killing Zarqawi in 2002. Leaving aside the notion that killing the terrorist at his lab would have been any more successful than President Clintons efforts to kill Osama Bin Laden by bombing his training camp in Afghanistan, one notices the flip-flop by the left immediately; if Saddam had no ties to terrorists, how is it possible that we missed anyone? And if he did indeed have ties to terrorist groups, doesnt that justify the invasion and subsequent liberation of Iraq?
If I were you, I wouldnt say any of that too loudly in the presence of a liberal. His head is likely to explode.
The clear message by days end was that the death of Zarqawi didnt mean a tinkers damn. Representative Pete Stark led the charge, calling the killing of the jihadist, in effect, a political ploy:
Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war.
This is just to cover Bushs [rear] so he doesnt have to answer for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. Iraq is still a messget out.
Stark and Kucinich evidently didnt get the memo on how to react to the good news of al Zarqawis death. For in the end, the Democrats downplaying this victory could cost them dearly at the polls.
Just yesterday, an AP-Ipsos poll was released showing support for the war at an all time low. One wonders what that same poll might be saying now that the news of Zarqawis death has spread far and wide as well as the equally good news that the Iraqis have finally gotten their act together and finished forming a government by naming the Defense, and Interior Ministers as well as the chief National Security adviser. I daresay that the American people are a little more upbeat about our prospects for total victory in Iraq now that these two very important pieces are in place.
It wont be a large bump in the Presidents numbers, but it will probably be significant. And this, of course, what all the spinning and backtracking was about in the first place. Any rise in the Presidents poll numbers will give the lie to the lefts talking points that Bush is finished. And with the Iraqis now ready to finally try and get a handle on the admittedly grim internal security situation, there is a very real chance that by November, significant improvements will be visible thus undercutting the Democratic critique of the war substantially.
What will the American people make of this effort to downplay such a significant victory? One would think that they would reward the Democrats for their loyalty by refusing to give them the responsibility for winning a war whose prospects for victory took such a large step forward yesterday.
Rick Moran is the proprietor of the webiste Right Wing Nut House, and a frequent contributor to The American Thinker.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #145
With the virgin thing do you think Bill Clinton will rethink his stand on Islam?
Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,827
- 1,790
Whoops, that reminds me, I have a good, but *ahem* sort of vulgar post for you:red states rule said:With the virgin thing do you think Bill Clinton will rethink his stand on Islam?
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2006/06/paradise_blows.html
Paradise Is Overrated
Iowahawk Guest Commentary
by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi
Former Senior VP, Al-Qaeda In Iraq
Howzit swingin', fagsicles? Yeah, I know all you bitzoches all seen the pictures by now. Go on and laugh it up chump, like your drivers license photo is all George fuckin' Clooney. Personally I think I'm lookin' straight GQ, seeing as I just got a 500-pound laser guided curb stomp. Shit cuz, y'all should see Kahlid, a.k.a. "Ceiling Spackle." But, hey, whateva. You kuffar haters can finally step off my nuts, 'cause I. am. outtahere. Y'all can just suck it, 'cause Zarkman got his free pass to Allah's celestial Disneyland.
You think I didn't see this martyrdom goatshit coming? Cracka, please. When we were out in the boondocks filming that recruiting infomercial last month, I told that asshole Zawahiri that it was dangerous, that Team Satan would lock in on us with one of their outer space high tech computer gizmos. But nooooooo, he's all, "don't worry, they need an NSA warrant," and then he's like, "we have to attack the mindshare gap with a high GRP, Total Quality Jihad leadership marcom message." Which apparently means I have to stand there under Team Satan's goddamn spy satellites, yelling like the goddamn OxyClean guy, burning my goddamn hand on a goddamn machine gun barrel, while that goddamn director Omar Al-Spielberg asks for another goddamn take. Yeah, that's some world class marketing strategery there, Ayman. Best ad campaign since Pets.com. Have fun training all four of those Syrian droolers that it brought in.
So yeah, I figured I'd be caught in the next round of downsizing, so I started keeping myself prepared. For example, I shaved my junk every morning this week. Okay, I know what you're thinking: what the fizzuck? But trust me, it's in the Koran, and it's not as weird as it sounds. If you're about to be banging a room full of doe-eyed virgins, you're gonna want those nards Brazilian waxed pornstar style. Plus I guess them foxy heaven hos also appreciate a couple of splashes of cologne so they don't have to smell your stanky sack. It's just common martyr courtesy, and that's why around the AQ office we call Brut "the smell of death".
Pretty good in theory, I guess, but holy dung - you try keeping your nuts Kojak-ed with a 9-month old rusty Schick Quattro and your shaving hand all bandaged from gun barrel burn blisters. Faaack, I must have used up three styptic pencils just since Saturday. And when I slapped 'em with a splash of Hai Karate? Talk about a muthafuckin' STING. Mohammed H. Prophet, I think my scream hit two octaves above a dog whistle.
So anyhow, I got my bidness clean, I got my policy with Mutual of Medina paid up, I had a final family meeting with Fatima and the kids. "Are you going to paradise, Father?" says that teenaged one, what's-her-burqqa. "Yeah, but I'll have people watching out for you," I says. "So if you're even thinking about any of that clan dishonor shit, you better watch your back."
Okay, Thursday morning. I clock in at the office, pour a mug of tea, fire up the laptop and check out the latest posts on dKos. Sure, I've had my differences with them in the past. But with morale the way it is Allah knows we need a good laugh around here, and that shit is funnier than Homestar Runner. They had a new parody up, and I swear it had me roaring so hard I was on the verge of a shit hemorrhage. It had Kahlid laughing to the point of tears, and when he goes to wipe his good eye he almost puts it out with his hook, and then this makes Mahmoud squirt tea through his nose, and then this gets the whole damn office going. We're all just fucking roaring, when suddenly there's this silence, and then a funny high-pitched noise.
Tariq says, "did you just hear th..."
Now, back in the madrassa when we studied the afterlife, I always wondered what would be the last thing to go through my head. I'm pretty sure now it was one of Mahmoud's anklebones. And if you're wondering if it was painless? Imagine a full-frontal 800 degree root canal while listening to a Neil Young record. But hey, I figure no big whoop, just the admission price to heaven's eternal ho sammich.
So Zarkman walks toward the light. No shit, it's a lot like 2001: A Space Odyssey, but in 3-D quadrophonic sensurround. And BOOM, plop, I'm in this gigantic white room, completely empty except for this hooded faceless guy and a totally sweet 47" plasma screen. So I walk across the big empy room to the guy, and I'm like, there is but one God, and Mohammed is his messenger, death to the infidels, yada yada yada. So I'm waiting for him to punch my E-ticket for Magic Ho Mountain, when he whips out a DVD and pops it in. It's the director's cut of "This Is Your Life, Zarkman." Sure, there's a lot of blooper material in there, but also a pretty badass highlight reel -- the rapes, the murders, the IEDs, hour after hour of beheadings. Good times, man. Good times.
Anyhoo, he fast-forwards through the credits and the FBI warning, pulls out the DVD, and turns to me with an empty faceless stare. Dead fucking silence, like he's expecting me to say something. A couple minutes pass, and still Chatty Cathy isn't saying a word. So I'm like, "hey, bitch, you're welcome."
Okay, good, this finally gets the guy off the schneid. He points over to a door on the far side of the room that opens up, zwwwwippitch, just like the old Star Trek noise. It's a good thing too, 'cause my bald balls were turning blue from the thought of that fine ass ho-stack on the other side. Cracka, I got my fat horny Jordanian ass into a full trot across that room and did a dive-roll through that door like vintage Shatner.
When the door close behind me, zwwwwippitch, I guess you could say I was a little surprised, maybe a little disappointed. Turns out paradise is dumpier that you'd expect. A lot dumpier. In fact it's a lot like the Iraq boondocks; sandy, dusty, seemed like 150 degrees in the shade. I always figured paradise would have better climate control, but hey, Allah has the thermostat and He works in mysterious ways. I start looking around, and looking around. No virgins, no figs, no raisins. Now, I'm horny, hungry, and annoyed. Okay, I figure, I guess it's up to Zarkman to cherchez la poontang himself, so I start to walk down this dusty street, and BOOOM!
Get this: some asshole planted an IED right in the middle of goddamn downtown Paradise, and I take my first step right on the cocksucker. As I was flying through the air, I'm going, what the dung? It must have been planted by some Jew or Crusader, but how did one of those bastards slip into paradise in the first place? It was giving me a headache. Then I got another headache when the schoolbus ran over my head.
I was laying there trying to figure it out, when my various limbs and torsos and gonads and such started to reassemble, sort of like that liquid chrome cop in Terminator 2. Pretty cool, but it hurt like a mofo. So SPROING! I'm back on my feet, and start out again and BOOM! And I'm like, another fucking IED? I mean, what are the frigging odds? Then shhhklorrrp, bus over the head, reassemble SPROING. The next couple of hours was a blur of step- BOOM- shhhklorrrp - SPROING, lather-rinse-repeat, and I'm like, dude, fuck this shit. I had only made it 50 yards and wasn't all that horny anymore.
Anyway, I'm standing there trying to figure out my next step, when this badass crew of straightup masked assassins comes around the corner. Talk about a relief, I was beginning to wonder if Allah had made some sort of mistake. And I'm like, "yo, cuz, which way to the virgina?" Then the assholes start eying me up and down, lauging. And then I'm like, "come on, holmes, don't bogart the cooch," and then you know what those douchebags did? Throw a friggin' burqqa over my head and drag me into an abandoned warehouse. I'm goin' finally, some action.
I will spare you the ribald details, but let's just say after that 12 hour train bang I know how Marilyn Chambers felt after Behind the Green Door III. Dude, I can't even fart anymore, I hoot. And I'm so bowlegged they call me Hopalong. But, hey, I'm thinking it was just part of the Paradise Club for Martyrs initiation, because we sometimes did the same thing with AQ recruits. Not gay or anything, just to make sure the new jihadis knew who the boss was.
I pulled up my trou, and they were sitting there smoking cigs, and I'm like, okay homeslices, you had your fun, bring on the bitches. And then you know what the bastards did? Pull out the scimitars and start slicing off my fargin' head. What the flock??? If you've never been beheaded, let me clue you in: it. hurts. like. a. muthafuka. And being the ball in an alley pickup soccer game is no picnic either. Man, I'm telling you, you Omega Q-dogs ain't got shit compared to this initiation ceremony.
Anyway, they just got my head half sewed-back on, and broke for lunch. Right now I'm at some shitty internet cafe. Nothing but AOL dial-up, and for some reason the the only sites I can access are HuffPo and Iowahawk, and nothing but Dixie Chicks on the jukebox. I ordered the raisin & date plate, but I'm pretty sure that ain't dried fruit.
Gotta go soon, I guess I'm scheduled for some more beheadings after lunch. Just between us, I'd have to say that so far Paradise has overrated. Don't get me wrong, Allahu Akbar, blah blah blah. But if this initiation thing doesn't end soon, I'm thinking about filling out a complaint form.
In the meantime, I'm trying to keep thinking positive. It's been a little rough here so far, but at least I haven't noticed a single Marine.
Peace Out,
Zarkman
June 09, 2006 |
Mariner
Active Member
had WMD's and they were moved. However, Bush's spokesperson Steven Hadley already stated publicly, over 6 months ago, that there were none. And Bush even checked under his desk, and still didn't find any.
As for the quotes from Democrats who supported the war, remember we haven't yet been permitted by Bush et al to examine the actual editing of the national security estimates between when they read them and when they showed them to Congress. The second phase of the investigation into the administration's (mis)use of intelligence has been conveniently held up by the Republican-led Congress. If there's nothing to be ashamed of, why are Bush and the Republican Congress so secretive? This is our government--we have a right to see what they're doing. It's 3-4 years ago now that they planned the war. It would not hurt to show us how they arrived at their conclusions.
Personally, it seems rather more likely to me that they were listening to Karl Rove than to the intelligence community. Rove suggestion 1.5 years before we invaded that an invasion would guarantee Bush a second term--and he was right.
Bush himself seems unwilling to triumphalize Z's death. He seems to have learned his lesson, after Saddam and Sons' capture and deaths, and the elections in Iraq, both turned out to be only minor upticks in an otherwise very messy situation. Bush publicly regretted his "Bring them on" statement this week. Who is this guy anyway? Remember a few months ago, the microphone was on when he didn't know it, and he commented on how he'd be "curled in a fetal position under the table" [my paraphrase from memory] if he took people's criticisms of him to heart? Another bizarre comment. Is he all bluster and no real strength?
Mariner.
P.S. Did you notice how Bush/Congress just tossed out a $684 million proposal to inspect shipping containers while seeking to approve over $300 billion in estate tax cuts? This is how Republicans make us safe?
As for the quotes from Democrats who supported the war, remember we haven't yet been permitted by Bush et al to examine the actual editing of the national security estimates between when they read them and when they showed them to Congress. The second phase of the investigation into the administration's (mis)use of intelligence has been conveniently held up by the Republican-led Congress. If there's nothing to be ashamed of, why are Bush and the Republican Congress so secretive? This is our government--we have a right to see what they're doing. It's 3-4 years ago now that they planned the war. It would not hurt to show us how they arrived at their conclusions.
Personally, it seems rather more likely to me that they were listening to Karl Rove than to the intelligence community. Rove suggestion 1.5 years before we invaded that an invasion would guarantee Bush a second term--and he was right.
Bush himself seems unwilling to triumphalize Z's death. He seems to have learned his lesson, after Saddam and Sons' capture and deaths, and the elections in Iraq, both turned out to be only minor upticks in an otherwise very messy situation. Bush publicly regretted his "Bring them on" statement this week. Who is this guy anyway? Remember a few months ago, the microphone was on when he didn't know it, and he commented on how he'd be "curled in a fetal position under the table" [my paraphrase from memory] if he took people's criticisms of him to heart? Another bizarre comment. Is he all bluster and no real strength?
Mariner.
P.S. Did you notice how Bush/Congress just tossed out a $684 million proposal to inspect shipping containers while seeking to approve over $300 billion in estate tax cuts? This is how Republicans make us safe?
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #148
Mariner said:had WMD's and they were moved. However, Bush's spokesperson Steven Hadley already stated publicly, over 6 months ago, that there were none. And Bush even checked under his desk, and still didn't find any.
As for the quotes from Democrats who supported the war, remember we haven't yet been permitted by Bush et al to examine the actual editing of the national security estimates between when they read them and when they showed them to Congress. The second phase of the investigation into the administration's (mis)use of intelligence has been conveniently held up by the Republican-led Congress. If there's nothing to be ashamed of, why are Bush and the Republican Congress so secretive? This is our government--we have a right to see what they're doing. It's 3-4 years ago now that they planned the war. It would not hurt to show us how they arrived at their conclusions.
Personally, it seems rather more likely to me that they were listening to Karl Rove than to the intelligence community. Rove suggestion 1.5 years before we invaded that an invasion would guarantee Bush a second term--and he was right.
Bush himself seems unwilling to triumphalize Z's death. He seems to have learned his lesson, after Saddam and Sons' capture and deaths, and the elections in Iraq, both turned out to be only minor upticks in an otherwise very messy situation. Bush publicly regretted his "Bring them on" statement this week. Who is this guy anyway? Remember a few months ago, the microphone was on when he didn't know it, and he commented on how he'd be "curled in a fetal position under the table" [my paraphrase from memory] if he took people's criticisms of him to heart? Another bizarre comment. Is he all bluster and no real strength?
Mariner.
P.S. Did you notice how Bush/Congress just tossed out a $684 million proposal to inspect shipping containers while seeking to approve over $300 billion in estate tax cuts? This is how Republicans make us safe?
Here is another example of the liberal media trying to ruin a great victory in Iraq
This is from the Washington Compost
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13212323/from/ET/
A chilling portrait, unsuitably framed
Photo of al-Zarqawi's head framed like a venerated image, or war trophy
By Philip Kennicott
Updated: 7:18 a.m. ET June 9, 2006
WASHINGTON - The frame surrounding an image of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's head, revealed to the world as proof the terrorist is dead, is bizarre. When the picture was displayed at a U.S. military news briefing, Zarqawi's face was seen inside what appeared to be a professional photographic mat job, with a large frame, as if it were something one might preserve and hang on the wall next to other family portraits. One function of frames is to bound an image, and close down its open edges; frames delimit, both physically and by extension, metaphorically. But that was the last thing this frame was doing.
Even as the news was greeting a sleepy America, bursting forth on the morning talk programs and racing around the Internet, the meaning of Zarqawi's death was anything but closed. Virtually no one outside the Iraqi insurgency and other jihadists thought his death was a bad thing, though reports came in that members of Zarqawi's Jordanian family, who had publicly distanced themselves from the killer after he brought his violence to hotels in Amman, were grieving.
In this country, a familiar dynamic played out. Supporters of the war cheered, and criticized the war's opponents (by now a sizable majority of Americans) if they didn't cheer, too. More cautious voices broached the idea -- though at the peril of having their patriotism questioned -- that this may not be the desired turning point in the conflict. They reminded us that we had already seen similar photographs of Uday and Qusay, Saddam Hussein's dead sons, and that Saddam's capture was also supposed to be the beginning of the end of the mayhem.
A strange dignity
So will this image, given a strange dignity by its prominent frame, be a defining image of the war? Not likely. Its primary function is forensic. It proves, in an age of skepticism (heightened by a three-year history of official claims about the war turning out to be false), that Zarqawi is indeed dead. But beyond that, the image has little power. Indeed, as with so many images in this war, it is loaded with the potential to backfire
Among the dissenting voices in the hubbub yesterday were those worried about Zarqawi's status as a martyr. And here, again, the frame plays a very odd role. In many traditions, a framed picture of the deceased suggests something like an icon, something to be venerated. Photographs of journalists photographing the image at the news briefing showed Zarqawi's face looming above them. One might believe, for a moment, that they had gathered to bask in its exalted presence.
The image itself, a disembodied head, connects this event to the abject misery that Zarqawi had brought to so many people in Iraq over the course of his deadly career. He was the one who reportedly sawed off the head of Nicholas Berg, and now Zarqawi's head was appearing, lifeless, eyes closed, as if it too were somehow detached from his body. For those who want revenge, the head of Zarqawi is a welcome sight; but it reminds others how much this war has been about cycles of killing, retribution, tribal and sectarian violence, and the most primitive destructive urges.
When the White House decided to "roll out a new product" (former chief of staff Andrew Card's phrase) three years ago, the looming war was sold as urgent, with little doubt that it would be fast and clean. We would be liberators; the war would pay for itself. And now we gaze on Zarqawi's face one last time, as he reminds us that the new product wasn't so new; the war turned out to have all too much of what wars have always had in them, death, destruction and chaos. Zarqawi's head forces us to confront once again the most primitive dynamic of war: It's an eye for an eye, or a head for a head.
Trophy image?
The framed image of a head also has a disturbing sense of the trophy to it -- proof of another small victory brought home from battle -- which connects it to what might be called the ultimate self-destructing image of victory: the "Mission Accomplished" photo-op staged on an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003. Even before the war had definitively turned sour, that single image established a pattern. The war would be politicized.
What began as a war of necessity, premised on the slam-dunk certainty that Saddam Hussein was staring us down with weapons of mass destruction, eventually became a war of ideas. If there were no weapons, then at least it was a war of liberation, bringing freedom and democracy to a land in desperate need of both. And when that war devolved into clouds of dust and pools of blood as the country broke into religious and ethnic factions, and the rule of law was extinguished by terrorists and militias, the war of ideas began to seem more like another thing -- a war of trophies.
We may not have victory. Iraq may be a living hell both for those who are fighting to make it better and for those who live there. But we bring home the occasional politically expedient marker of "progress." Major combat operations are over. We got Saddam's sons. We got Saddam. Now we have Zarqawi. The trophy case fills: elections, a constitution, a new government -- everything but peace and stability for an exhausted nation of Iraqis who have died by the tens of thousands during the evolution of this war.
Zarqawi is gone and good riddance. But there's nothing in the image of his face that deserves a frame. It's a small thing, to be sure. But it suggests a cynicism about this war that is profoundly distressing. Our political and military leaders simply can't resist packaging the war and wrapping it up in a bow.
1549
Active Member
Kathianne said:Whoops, that reminds me, I have a good, but *ahem* sort of vulgar post for you:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2006/06/paradise_blows.html
Does anyone here watch "Da Ali G Show"? It is probably one of the funniest shows I have ever seen. I brought this up because the author of that piece sort of ripped off Ali G's slang.
Best quotes of "Da Ali G Show":
--Ali G: There has been enough sadness since the terrible events of 7-11.
--Ali G: So does Jesus really exist, or is he just your father dressed up?
--Ali G: So, if this show teach you anything, it should teach you how to respek everyone: animals, children, bitches, spazmos, mingers, lezzers, fatty boombahs, and even gaylords. So, to all you lot watching this, but mainly to the normal people, respek. West side.
--Ali G: And what date does you hold the Fourth of July on?
--Ali GThat's an awfully sexist way to be talkin' about dem bitches!
--Borat: In U.S. and A. they treat horses like we in Kazakhstan treat our women. They feed them two times a day. They have them sleep on straw in a small box. And for entertainment, they make them jump over fences while being whipped.
--Borat: Where is cage for wife?
--Borat: There is one singer called Shakira... sorry I laugh because in Kazakhstan this word means vagina. For example, 'Can I touch your shakira?' or 'I have seen your wife's shakira, it hangs like the mouth of a tired dog'.
1549
Active Member
red states rule said:Here is another example of the liberal media trying to ruin a great victory in Iraq
This is from the Washington Compost
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13212323/from/ET/
A chilling portrait, unsuitably framed
Photo of al-Zarqawi's head framed like a venerated image, or war trophy
By Philip Kennicott
Updated: 7:18 a.m. ET June 9, 2006
WASHINGTON - The frame surrounding an image of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's head, revealed to the world as proof the terrorist is dead, is bizarre. When the picture was displayed at a U.S. military news briefing, Zarqawi's face was seen inside what appeared to be a professional photographic mat job, with a large frame, as if it were something one might preserve and hang on the wall next to other family portraits. One function of frames is to bound an image, and close down its open edges; frames delimit, both physically and by extension, metaphorically. But that was the last thing this frame was doing.
Even as the news was greeting a sleepy America, bursting forth on the morning talk programs and racing around the Internet, the meaning of Zarqawi's death was anything but closed. Virtually no one outside the Iraqi insurgency and other jihadists thought his death was a bad thing, though reports came in that members of Zarqawi's Jordanian family, who had publicly distanced themselves from the killer after he brought his violence to hotels in Amman, were grieving.
In this country, a familiar dynamic played out. Supporters of the war cheered, and criticized the war's opponents (by now a sizable majority of Americans) if they didn't cheer, too. More cautious voices broached the idea -- though at the peril of having their patriotism questioned -- that this may not be the desired turning point in the conflict. They reminded us that we had already seen similar photographs of Uday and Qusay, Saddam Hussein's dead sons, and that Saddam's capture was also supposed to be the beginning of the end of the mayhem.
A strange dignity
So will this image, given a strange dignity by its prominent frame, be a defining image of the war? Not likely. Its primary function is forensic. It proves, in an age of skepticism (heightened by a three-year history of official claims about the war turning out to be false), that Zarqawi is indeed dead. But beyond that, the image has little power. Indeed, as with so many images in this war, it is loaded with the potential to backfire
Among the dissenting voices in the hubbub yesterday were those worried about Zarqawi's status as a martyr. And here, again, the frame plays a very odd role. In many traditions, a framed picture of the deceased suggests something like an icon, something to be venerated. Photographs of journalists photographing the image at the news briefing showed Zarqawi's face looming above them. One might believe, for a moment, that they had gathered to bask in its exalted presence.
The image itself, a disembodied head, connects this event to the abject misery that Zarqawi had brought to so many people in Iraq over the course of his deadly career. He was the one who reportedly sawed off the head of Nicholas Berg, and now Zarqawi's head was appearing, lifeless, eyes closed, as if it too were somehow detached from his body. For those who want revenge, the head of Zarqawi is a welcome sight; but it reminds others how much this war has been about cycles of killing, retribution, tribal and sectarian violence, and the most primitive destructive urges.
When the White House decided to "roll out a new product" (former chief of staff Andrew Card's phrase) three years ago, the looming war was sold as urgent, with little doubt that it would be fast and clean. We would be liberators; the war would pay for itself. And now we gaze on Zarqawi's face one last time, as he reminds us that the new product wasn't so new; the war turned out to have all too much of what wars have always had in them, death, destruction and chaos. Zarqawi's head forces us to confront once again the most primitive dynamic of war: It's an eye for an eye, or a head for a head.
Trophy image?
The framed image of a head also has a disturbing sense of the trophy to it -- proof of another small victory brought home from battle -- which connects it to what might be called the ultimate self-destructing image of victory: the "Mission Accomplished" photo-op staged on an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003. Even before the war had definitively turned sour, that single image established a pattern. The war would be politicized.
What began as a war of necessity, premised on the slam-dunk certainty that Saddam Hussein was staring us down with weapons of mass destruction, eventually became a war of ideas. If there were no weapons, then at least it was a war of liberation, bringing freedom and democracy to a land in desperate need of both. And when that war devolved into clouds of dust and pools of blood as the country broke into religious and ethnic factions, and the rule of law was extinguished by terrorists and militias, the war of ideas began to seem more like another thing -- a war of trophies.
We may not have victory. Iraq may be a living hell both for those who are fighting to make it better and for those who live there. But we bring home the occasional politically expedient marker of "progress." Major combat operations are over. We got Saddam's sons. We got Saddam. Now we have Zarqawi. The trophy case fills: elections, a constitution, a new government -- everything but peace and stability for an exhausted nation of Iraqis who have died by the tens of thousands during the evolution of this war.
Zarqawi is gone and good riddance. But there's nothing in the image of his face that deserves a frame. It's a small thing, to be sure. But it suggests a cynicism about this war that is profoundly distressing. Our political and military leaders simply can't resist packaging the war and wrapping it up in a bow.
Actually it is the media criticizing a strange decision to show pictures of a dead man's head.
So many people say, "the beheaded Americans were not given respect"...my response: America is not a group of fucking rogue terrorists. We are the United States of America, there is no need to flaunt our victories like an attention starved slut.
Barry Sanders knew he was the best, he used to hand the ball to the ref after touchdowns. The United States just pulled a Terrell Owens...a completely classless move.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #151
And then libs could rant we did NOT kill him. They did the same things when Saddams sons died. When we showed the pictures they had another meltdown
When we showed Saddam getting his medical checkup they ranted and raved we humilated him
Libs continue to show America what a bunch a sore losing crybabies they are. They cannot stand to see good things happen to the US and for our military
When we showed Saddam getting his medical checkup they ranted and raved we humilated him
Libs continue to show America what a bunch a sore losing crybabies they are. They cannot stand to see good things happen to the US and for our military
GotZoom
Senior Member
1549 said:Actually it is the media criticizing a strange decision to show pictures of a dead man's head.
So many people say, "the beheaded Americans were not given respect"...my response: America is not a group of fucking rogue terrorists. We are the United States of America, there is no need to flaunt our victories like an attention starved slut.
Barry Sanders knew he was the best, he used to hand the ball to the ref after touchdowns. The United States just pulled a Terrell Owens...a completely classless move.
Another example of how little you know.
You "show" pictures as proof. Unfortunately, when dealing with people in other countries, our allies, some our enemies, and unfortunately, some of those in our own country, you have to "show" proof - because if you don't, people will accuse you of lying.
When conspiracy theorists still say we never landed on the moon, and a member of the former Clinton adminstration accuses the Bush administration of holding OBL in secret to boost his election chances, yes, we have to resort to this behavior.
-----
The most famous airing of the "Osama has already been captured" rumor came in December 2003, when Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State during the Clinton administration, wondered aloud to Fox News commentator Morton Kondracke if Osama bin Laden hadn't already been captured, with the news being withheld until the President needed another hype in the polls. "Do you suppose," she asked, "that the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?" Albright subsequently claimed her remark was made in a jocular 'I'm pulling your leg' fashion, but Kondracke said of Albright's manner that "She was not smiling when she said this," and of the others who were in the room, "[T]hey didn't think it was a joke"
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/captured.asp
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #153
You are getting close. I am waiting for the tin foil hat wearing libs to say it really was not Zarqawi, but an imposter.
You see Bush and Cheney snatched a homeless man off the streets of DC, had plactic surgery done on him, took him into Iraq, put him in the house, and then bombed it
Meanwhile, Zarqawi is in Las Vegas, under a new identity, watching topless showgirls three times a night at the Sands
You see Bush and Cheney snatched a homeless man off the streets of DC, had plactic surgery done on him, took him into Iraq, put him in the house, and then bombed it
Meanwhile, Zarqawi is in Las Vegas, under a new identity, watching topless showgirls three times a night at the Sands
CSM
Senior Member
War is not football...the way the propaganda has been played so far, the picture was not classless. I suppose you find all the pictures of the terrorist atrocities on I'll Jeeratya as the epitome of taste?1549 said:Actually it is the media criticizing a strange decision to show pictures of a dead man's head.
So many people say, "the beheaded Americans were not given respect"...my response: America is not a group of fucking rogue terrorists. We are the United States of America, there is no need to flaunt our victories like an attention starved slut.
Barry Sanders knew he was the best, he used to hand the ball to the ref after touchdowns. The United States just pulled a Terrell Owens...a completely classless move.
This war is not about the moral high ground and it sure as hell isn't about who shows the most class.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #155
CSM said:War is not football...the way the propaganda has been played so far, the picture was not classless. I suppose you find all the pictures of the terrorist atrocities on I'll Jeeratya as the epitome of taste?
This war is not about the moral high ground and it sure as hell isn't about who shows the most class.
Libs are a desperate bunch these days. They show what a classless bunch they really are. The only good thing is, they are showing all of America whose side they are on
They do not stand with our troops. They do not stand with our President. They stand alone. There only concern is to regain their lost political power
The sad thing is, they think this is the way they will get it back
1549
Active Member
GotZoom said:Another example of how little you know.
You "show" pictures as proof. Unfortunately, when dealing with people in other countries, our allies, some our enemies, and unfortunately, some of those in our own country, you have to "show" proof - because if you don't, people will accuse you of lying.
When conspiracy theorists still say we never landed on the moon, and a member of the former Clinton adminstration accuses the Bush administration of holding OBL in secret to boost his election chances, yes, we have to resort to this behavior.
-----
The most famous airing of the "Osama has already been captured" rumor came in December 2003, when Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State during the Clinton administration, wondered aloud to Fox News commentator Morton Kondracke if Osama bin Laden hadn't already been captured, with the news being withheld until the President needed another hype in the polls. "Do you suppose," she asked, "that the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?" Albright subsequently claimed her remark was made in a jocular 'I'm pulling your leg' fashion, but Kondracke said of Albright's manner that "She was not smiling when she said this," and of the others who were in the room, "[T]hey didn't think it was a joke"
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/captured.asp
There was no doubt that Zarqawi was dead. Al-Queda posted it on their web-site. His brother came foreward and said he is in "martyr heaven" or something to that affect.
This war is not about the moral high ground and it sure as hell isn't about who shows the most class.
How many times have you heard "winning hearts and minds"? It is most definately about showing class. We are involved in a nation building process that can only be described as very difficult. Every decision must show that we are a respectful partner in Iraq's future. This move did not demonstrate any thought for possible ramifications.
Libs are a desperate bunch these days. They show what a classless bunch they really are. The only good thing is, they are showing all of America whose side they are on
They do not stand with our troops. They do not stand with our President. They stand alone. There only concern is to regain their lost political power
The sad thing is, they think this is the way they will get it back
As Dr. Evil would say, "riiiiiight"
I don't stand for our troops? Why do you think I feel we should have kept the photo out of the public lense? When images like this are released, it infuriates. When people are angry, they often take action. In the case of Iraq, that could mean that a couple of American soldiers will be killed tomorrow by vengeful Iraqis.
I respect the President's power, I just think his decisions are flawed. I wish him good health and I hope America prospers under his presidency. If he fails, people will die and others will lose jobs and money (that could include my family or myself). Failure is certainly not something I root for. I do hope that more Americans in Ohio or Florida will understand that the Republican party may not be best for America's future.
When do you expect to O.D. on conservative propoganda? GotZoom disagreed with me. He decided to state why he thinks my argument is wrong. You, on the other hand, just came out and made baseless claims about my beliefs without ever commenting on the post itself. You do it to posters quite often. Someone will make an assertion, you respond with "Liberals are idiots, yada yada yada". If you think every liberal is an idiot, then come out and argue the issue. Right now you sound like a broken record in the corner of the room.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #157
Libs have a long history of not confronting evil. That is what gave us 9-11.
IF the Dems had their way, yesterday would not have happened. We would have left Iraq 6 months ago
There have been several libs bellowing today now is the time to get out
I stand by my statement the ONLY thing Dems care about is getting their political power back
IF the Dems had their way, yesterday would not have happened. We would have left Iraq 6 months ago
There have been several libs bellowing today now is the time to get out
I stand by my statement the ONLY thing Dems care about is getting their political power back
Abbey Normal
Senior Member
red states rule said:Libs have a long history of not confronting evil. That is what gave us 9-11.
IF the Dems had their way, yesterday would not have happened. We would have left Iraq 6 months ago
There have been several libs bellowing today now is the time to get out
I stand by my statement the ONLY thing Dems care about is getting their political power back
I agree completely. 100% Make that 110%.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #159
Thank you
Libs are so full of hate and rage they cannot even join the rest of us in celebrating the death of a murderous terrorist
To libs the ONLY terrorist who needs to be brought down is Pres George W Bush
Libs are so full of hate and rage they cannot even join the rest of us in celebrating the death of a murderous terrorist
To libs the ONLY terrorist who needs to be brought down is Pres George W Bush
Mariner
Active Member
whining and whining about the quality of reporting from Iraq.
That's a nice way to distract yourselves from the all-too-obvious fact that our Iraqi adventure is not turning out exactly as planned.
In the meantime, we're ignoring all the most important things we ought to be doing to make this country safer:
--inspecting containers arriving in our ports (Congress just canned a proposed $684 million measure to increase inspections--why?)
--securing loose nuclear material around the world (Bush's plan is to finish this by 2020. Nuclear experts say it could be done in two years for just a few billion dollars. What are we waiting for??)
--eliminating the U.S. budget deficit. The fact that we depend on Asia and the middle East to finance our deficits is our single greatest weakness. It means we can't go after Saudi Wahhabism that created Al Qaeda. It means we can't go after China's human rights issues. It means we've handed many countries the capacity to incapacitate us, simply by selling off a few of their dollars. Our savings rate has now gone negative--for the first time since the Great Depression. And all because this gov't is committed to cutting taxes while expanding its size and fighting a war. Why are Republicans doing this?
Republicans are running this gov't, folks. So instead of wasting all your breath on the media and on the party out of power, how about noticing just how badly your own team is doing... ?
How come you guys won't talk about the obvious fact that, in retrospect, it was one of the worst decisions ever made to invade Iraq? A trillion dollars is buying us... what?
Mariner.
That's a nice way to distract yourselves from the all-too-obvious fact that our Iraqi adventure is not turning out exactly as planned.
In the meantime, we're ignoring all the most important things we ought to be doing to make this country safer:
--inspecting containers arriving in our ports (Congress just canned a proposed $684 million measure to increase inspections--why?)
--securing loose nuclear material around the world (Bush's plan is to finish this by 2020. Nuclear experts say it could be done in two years for just a few billion dollars. What are we waiting for??)
--eliminating the U.S. budget deficit. The fact that we depend on Asia and the middle East to finance our deficits is our single greatest weakness. It means we can't go after Saudi Wahhabism that created Al Qaeda. It means we can't go after China's human rights issues. It means we've handed many countries the capacity to incapacitate us, simply by selling off a few of their dollars. Our savings rate has now gone negative--for the first time since the Great Depression. And all because this gov't is committed to cutting taxes while expanding its size and fighting a war. Why are Republicans doing this?
Republicans are running this gov't, folks. So instead of wasting all your breath on the media and on the party out of power, how about noticing just how badly your own team is doing... ?
How come you guys won't talk about the obvious fact that, in retrospect, it was one of the worst decisions ever made to invade Iraq? A trillion dollars is buying us... what?
Mariner.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 110
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 160
- Replies
- 66
- Views
- 610
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 90
- Views
- 534
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 3
- Replies
- 358
- Views
- 3K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8521
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 484
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-