The name doesn't fit. The name should be "The Exxon Wars".

Iraq: Success, as oil contracts go out of state for the first time since Hussein took over.

Afghanistan: Success, as Talibad wouldn't allow a pipeline be built.

Now it makes sense. Mission accomplished, oil companies happy once again.

Now that's a real shocker.

the war criminal will be gone in 9 days. may he rot in hell

Missionaccomplishitfuckedup.

Wow, and it seems like only yesterday the Rtards around here were assuring us that we should all be thanking Bush for keeping America and the rest of the planet so much safer from terrorism.

Oh wait, ...it WAS only yesterday.

The really, really, really, really sad thing about this global uptick in terrorism?

It was part of the PNAC plan.

From the get-go.

The "Global War On Terrorism" is supposed to supplant the old cold war rhetoric to allow the American MIC to keep the US military using up their current inventory and hence providing the impetus and rationale for selling their latest death products to the US government along with the rest of the world.

The peace dividend that the rest of the world yearns for is just a net loss on their books.

Mission Accomplishitfucked!

Be Well.

and again....NOT ONE ATTACK ON AMERICAN HOMEFRONT which I believe is one of his duties but I am sure that libs will skew and bend that to fit whatever nonsense they want to come up with.........

and I dont care if I did end it with a preposition

GRAMMAR POLICE WILL JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT>..

Rusty, after 1993, Clinton kept us safe for 7 years AND caught and prosecuted those responsible.

Don't be so stupid. When they want to hit us again, they will.

Islamic Fundamentalist's most certainly are savages.
It is imperative to the safety of the world at large that these savages be terminated.
The numbers of innocent deaths are going to spike dramatically should they gain access to a nuclear device or the like, as this article clearly illustrates.
Thankfully, the U.S. Government has sent the worlds most effective posses out to dispatch these criminals.

Don't be so stupid. When they want to hit us again, they will.

#7 | Posted by briwo at 2009-

okay so IM stupid and you are naive to think that.

there have been countless attacks thwarted thanks to this president when he refused to give in to people who wanted him to in the name of polls.

and again. just as in the thread about a boycott.
people still refuse to even acknowledge the rockets flying into isreal EACH AND EVERY DAY

and here is news that says something

both hamas and israel have turned down latest efforts for cease fire.....

go israel and dont stop............hamas will continue to get arms from iran and syria and they will continue to place hospitals OUTSIDE where the public can see firsthand the injured civilians and this AFTER hamas being the ones who placed them in danger and AGAIN>....israel haters here dont give a damn about any of those facts.....

and again....NOT ONE ATTACK ON AMERICAN HOMEFRONT

#6 | Posted by bushlovertwo

Except for that one attack on 09-11-2001, which resulted in more deaths then any attack in the U.S. since Pearl Harbor. An attack under George's watch that no one has been made to answer for, yet.

yeah give us the bush was involved theory
that will really zoom your credibility up the retort ladder....

...there have been countless attacks thwarted thanks to this president when he refused to give in to people who wanted him to in the name of polls.

Still buying into the Bush has kept us safe bullshit?

Oh Rusty, yer such a dupe.

Can you name even one such attack that wasn't hopelessly overly conflated into sommat it wasn't really fer propaganda purposes?

The shoe bomber perhaps?

The "terrorist cells" broken up that ended up being a bunch of pissed off muslims talking shit but with no resources, capabilities or actual plans or materials to make chaos ensue?

Okay here's a question you might be able to answer...

Wot flavor is the Koolaid today?

Grape, you say? Yer favorite?

and as usual you disregard the times that blowjob billy could have done something besides attack drug stores...........

and isnt there a country he sent troops who ARE sTIL THERE????

"and again....NOT ONE ATTACK ON AMERICAN HOMEFRONT which I believe is one of his duties..."

That would be a true statement if Bush 43's administration began on September 12, 2001.

But it didn't, so that's NOT a true statement.

He failed on that duty, like he failed most of his duties.

But, I understand that he thinks he's had the time of his life, being president and all that.

Hans

"and as usual you disregard the times that blowjob billy could have done something besides attack drug stores..........."

The perps responsible for the 1993 WTC attack are rotting in jail.

Where's Osama bin Laden?

Hans

the bush was involved theory

Bush allowed 9/11 to happen.

Bush prevented his counter terrorism people from doing their jobs.

Bush ignored all the warning signs deliberately.

Bush's PNACleheads wanted a "pearl harbour" type incident to enable them to go into Iraq which was one of their primary goals before they even got into office.

9/11 gave it to them.

That blood is on his hands and that of his handlers.

There are mostly three levels of belief on 9/11.

The "Government Story Sounds Perfectly Reasonable" faction.

That'd be you, Rusty.

The LIHOP or "Let It Happen On Purpose" crowd.

That'd be Spud.

And the MIHOP or "Made It Happen On Purpose" crowd.

That'd be BBob and the rest of the "Troofers".

Quite frankly, Spud finds the troofers to be more believable and certainly better informed on the topic than yer crowd.

Be Well.

"and as usual you disregard the times that blowjob billy could have done something besides attack drug stores..........."

Bush allowed 9/11 to happen.

That one never ceases to elicit laughter.

Thanks!

and you and pj of course still dont get it

the lie about sex was just him being a bad person but the lies to the grand jury
ARE AGAINST THE FUCKIN LAW.........

OKAY HANS.......you got me on that one

I left out SINCE 9/11.....but you knew damn well thats what I meant....

Where's Osama bin Laden?

Hans

#15 | Posted by Hans at 2009

good question...isnt it about time that he popped up again....I wonder if he is going to make a statement about the inaguration......

unless he is dead because HE HAS BEEN LIVING IN A CAVE THANKS TO OUR PRESIDENT not being a pussy

"NOT ONE ATTACK ON AMERICAN HOMEFRONT"

Will you give Clinton credit for there being no foreign terrorist attacks in the US from Feb 27th 1993-Jan 20 2001?

Of course you won't..you're are partisan hack!

"unless he is dead because HE HAS BEEN LIVING IN A CAVE THANKS TO OUR PRESIDENT not being a pussy"

He's living in a cave a free man. While you're in that library why don't you read up a little on Brer Fox and Brer Rabbit.

Meanwhile, the perps responsible for the 1993 WTC attack are rotting in jail.

Hans

Osama Bin Laden?

HE HAS BEEN LIVING ...THANKS TO OUR PRESIDENT

~Rusty T

Fixed. That. For. You.

Be Well.

"I left out SINCE 9/11.....but you knew damn well thats what I meant...."

This argument always sounds like an attorney defending his client, a doctor accused of malpractice:

Lawyer: "Members of the jury. While it is true that the plaintiff's young son died on the operating table due to the inattention of my client, the fact remains this doctor hasn't lost a single patient since then."

and again....NOT ONE ATTACK ON AMERICAN HOMEFRONT which I believe is one of his duties but I am sure that libs will skew and bend that to fit whatever nonsense they want to come up with.........

#6 | Posted by bushlovertwo at 2009-01-11 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

You need to add an addendum to that comment.

"Not counting the 3000 dead American Civilians in that one attack".

"the lie about sex was just him being a bad person but the lies to the grand jury
ARE AGAINST THE FUCKIN LAW........."

So's cheating on your taxes:

besides attack drug stores

~Rusty Trombone

Still buying into that propaganda?

The attack on the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was a fuck up but it was based on intelligence that samples of VX nerve gas components were found in the soil surrounding the plant. That mistake was eentually admitted and reparations were paid out. That all sed, the missiles Clinton ordered into Afghanistan that same week did come very close to killing Bin Laden.

Clinton's problem wasn't that he didn't try to kill Bin Laden but that he did and that he got very close but didn't finish him off.

Interviews with people who were living with the Bin Laden at the time of Clintons missile strikes report that a number of his close friends and some distant relations were killed by Clinton's bombs.

But in the reality challenged world of koolaid blinded sheeple like yerself all that happened there was that Clinton "attack drug stores"

That one never ceases to elicit laughter

~Bloatego

Presumably because you find thousands of dead Americans the height of hilarity?

thinknig aboput = thinking about

Be Well.

Thankfully, the U.S. Government has sent the worlds most effective posses out to dispatch these criminals.

Which explains why Zakahoochie, Mullah omar and Osama bin forgotten are free how, exactly? And putting al queda in Iraq on the US payrollisn't exactly "dispatched". Most effective cash deliverers maybe....

And if they are so effective, what's with the increase in terrorist attacks?
Sigh....once agian the right flees reality like a vampire flees the sun.

And ya gotta love BLT- he used to use the Kenya and saudistan attacks as proof Bush was better than Clinton on defending American soil, till the hourly attacks on US troops and the Green Zone became well known. Now US Embassies and military bases aren't America anymore. But any way you spin it Bush2 and Reagan both lost more Americans to islamic terrorists than Bubba. And made more money doing so...

well well....look at who came out of his mothers basement........

and it makes sense that you start killing these bastards that the rest are going to do something besides give up
havent any of you killed a ant bed or anything like that

So's cheating on your taxes:

HEY MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS......LOL

Not counting the 3000 dead American Civilians in that one attack".

#26 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at

ALL RIGHT ALREADY>>>I LEFT OUT SINCE 9/11

geesh............

Will you give Clinton credit for there being no foreign terrorist attacks in the US from Feb 27th 1993-Jan 20 2001?

Of course you won't..you're are partisan hack!

#22 | Posted by mrsoul62 at 2009

oh yeah...IM the partisan here.......you must not have read much from the spudbutt have you????

and mrsoul ...read any post from hans and then get back to me......or northguy or any other red commie pinko socialist that resides here.......lol

sorry forgot appeasing bastards.....yuk yuk

"ALL RIGHT ALREADY>>>I LEFT OUT SINCE 9/11"

This argument always sounds like an attorney defending his client, a doctor accused of malpractice:

Lawyer: "Members of the jury. While it is true that the plaintiff's young son died on the operating table due to the inattention of my client, the fact remains this doctor hasn't lost a single patient since then."

2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
2004
May 2931, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 1119, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
2006
Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy was foiled.
2007
Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy was fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
Dec. 11, Algeria: More than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.

come larry...

DO WE HAVE TO go through this again....

remember and this time listen REAL CLOSE....

those are places that we arent talking about...and sure when people die or are hurt anywhere, its not the greatest thing in the world for anyone

except for the obama supporters known as hamas and hezbolah,.........

but security for the places you are putting out there isnt solely in the hands of bush and you know it.......the countries you listed have much more to do with those attacks than something we didnt do

but you just keep posting that shit

I guess you are looking for a place in the hans 'cabinet or something

and I assume that you are saying that those attacks are bushs fault......please........

but I will say it here as well

with such an INEXPERIanced person put in charge of this stuff like leon...if THERE is an attack of any sort on americans on american soil in the lower 49 or hawaii or alaska ..oh shit, you know full well what i mean...that if there is one.
barry wayne is going to have a real problem.

Sorry but the security of us embassies and us consulates are the responsibility of the us state department as well as the usmc. So "yes they are Dubya's responsibility.

Larry

and again....NOT ONE ATTACK ON AMERICAN HOMEFRONT which I believe is one of his duties

BUSHLOVER2

EXCEPT...foR...THaT...InsiGNif
icant>>>>EVENt,,,,,On....09/11/01 !!!!!!!!!

"oh yeah...IM the partisan here"-Bushlover

I guess you don't realize how many true conservatives have stopped defending Bush and his big government policies. So, I can only assume that you are a 'my party, right or wrong' kinda guy when you still lend so much support to good old 'King Midas in Reverse'*. You clowns have poor Barry Goldwater spinning in his grave.

But if it will make you feel better, I call spud out on something...

As much as I'd like to believe it, I haven't seen any irrefutable evidence that Bush actually let 9-11 happen. It wouldn't surprise me if both he and Clinton weren't complicit in letting our guard down. But without the concrete evidence...I can't agree with you on this one spud.

* I apologize for having to quote someone as 'uncool' as Mr Nash...but it is appropriate.

and it makes sense that you start killing these bastards that the rest are going to do something besides give up
havent any of you killed a ant bed or anything like that

#31 | Posted by bushlovertwo

Hey BLT, was that English??

those terrorist stats are impressive ....
I'd suspect that if they were displayed graphically they would look remarkably like a "hockey stick"

hmmm .....

#30 | Posted by northguy3

I recall reading about some 1,000,000 having been dispatched since the onset of the WOT.
The vast majority of them were civilian insurgents along with Iraqi's and Afghan's complicit with the civilian insurgency.
Please note that there are no uniformed combatants in Iraq or Afghanistan, only militia-style civilian insurgents.
The WOT has masterfully drawn nearly all the efforts of Al-Qiada and the Taliban into two theaters of operation, far, far away from the US and it's free and safe people.
The increase in terrorist attacks are the tool the insurgents use to steer the western media and terrorize the local population into submission.
As savages, it's all they really know how to do.
Rest assured, BHO has committed to shift the US military effort away from the completed missions in Iraq and into the continuing efforts in Afghanistan and soon, it will be the hot-bed for continued Islamic terrorism.
Al-Qiada and the Taliban will attempt to "persuade" the Afghan Elders to continue to permit the villages be used to launch attacks against US forces and there will be more complicit civilian deaths.
I am confident, under GWB and BHO, the US will be as victorious in the dismantling of the Islamic Fundamentalist threat to the world as it was in dismantling the Nazi threat to the world in the 30's and 40's.

Excellent list, Cyborg.

I'm gonna post it.

Are we saving the world by democracy or because of it? We are all aware of shrubbie's (yes, lower case)failings. It would be nice to find a single total success that this small child-like man truly performed. I can't seem to find one. Maybe the number on fuck-up of the line of the presidents? It will take a long time if ever to reduce the damages inflicted by Bush/Cheney. Now that is a legacy to live down even if Pop is proud of him.

IM the partisan

~BLT

True dat and good fer you! The first step in recovering from a koolaid addiction is admitting you have a problem.

oh shit, you know full well what i mean

~BLT

Dude, you don't even know wot you mean.

I apologize for having to quote someone as 'uncool' as Mr Nash...but it is appropriate.

~Mr Soul.

Dude, Graham used to nail Joni Mitchell and actually wrote "Just a song before I go" in less time than it takes to drive to the airport on a bet.

How cool is that?

Spud thinks that's pretty damned cool.

Sure the CSN&Y backstage biatchfests were kinda uncool but fer the most part Spud puts 'em all in the 'cool' category.

Be Well.

"Hey BLT, was that English??"

I think rusty trombone was trying to explain why there are no more ants (and ant hills) left on the planet.

Hans

"Spud thinks that's pretty damned cool."

My tongue was mostly in cheek there spud. I do have friends who refuse to give Graham is props...and he is admittedly the less 'dark and tortured' of the four. But as I've gotten older, I've forgiven him for his 'pop star' moments. And through parenthood, I've found that 'Our House' isn't such a bad song after all. :)

NOT ONE ATTACK ON AMERICAN HOMEFRONT
#6 | Posted by bushlovertwoReply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e DUMB AS DIRT

EXCEPT FOR THAT LITTLE DUST-UP ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

EXCEPT FOR THAT LITTLE DUST-UP ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

#53 | POSTED BY DOC_SARVIS

BL2 wants a Mulligan for that little insufficient miscue...

And through parenthood, I've found that 'Our House' isn't such a bad song after all. :)

~Mr Soul

It's a very, very, very, fine song!

Although it's hard to compete with Crosby's turkey baster luff chile in terms of advanced cool.

BL2 wants a Mulligan for that little insufficient miscue...

~Zap.

And apparently Goat can't stop laughing at all the dead Americans on that day.

Sommat seriously wrong with that boy.

Be Well.

And apparently Goat can't stop laughing at all the dead Americans on that day.

???

SommatM (sic) seriously wrong with that boy.

There's something seriously wrong with you to post that. WTF are you talking about? Everyone on the DR is wondering.

It's from Raw Story, what do you expect!!
You missed this one though:
"The Iraq Effect: War Has Increased Terrorism Sevenfold Worldwide"

Ohhh, I found this one:

Iraq Increased Terrorism Worldwide?

"Excluding Iran and Afghanistan" columns show scarcely any difference between pre- and post- invasion terrorism. Including Iraq and Afghanistan in the term worldwide is at least misleading, if not downright dishonest--they're war zones and things labeled "terrorist attacks" within them may very well be military attacks with a different name slapped on. But even if it is terrorism, it's not worldwide if it's kept only to the two war zones."

Wellll, that's inconvenient, isn't it.

"Although it's hard to compete with Crosby's turkey baster luff chile in terms of advanced cool"

I gotta disagree with you one more time Spud. ANYTIME you're on the cover of People, US, etc...you lose major cool points.

It's gonna take another drug and gun arrest for Crosby to earn his street cred back. :)

Everyone on the DR is wondering.

Cos "Everyone" on the DR is endlessly fascinated by our little flame wars, presumably?

Or cos they all lack the ability to scroll up and read posts 18 and 28?

Be Well.

I gotta disagree with you one more time Spud. ANYTIME you're on the cover of People, US, etc...you lose major cool points.

It's gonna take another drug and gun arrest for Crosby to earn his street cred back. :)

~Mr Soul.

Point taken.

That acknowledged, all the cool kidZ refer to it as "Peep-hole" magazine, donchaknow?

Ya don't wanna lose any cool cred yerself, now do ya?

^_^

Be Well.

Spud=5, Bushfucker/goatfucker=0

Sorry but the security of us embassies and us consulates are the responsibility of the us state department as well as the usmc. So "yes they are Dubya's responsibility.

Larry

LARRY...it goes to show your reach in hate for our president and level of blame you put on him without just cause...this i blame this on your partisan politics....which will either destroy this nation or start a civil war....to start its the responsiblitity of the HOST nation to maintain a secure enviorment for ambassies in its country....second these attacks were PLANNED outside embassy compound....which is out of our juristiction....if these attacks were planned are launched inside the embassy compound you might have a point

2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
2004
May 2931, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 1119, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
2006
Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy was foiled.
2007
Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy was fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
Dec. 11, Algeria: More than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.

most of these attacks that YOU mentioned... happened outside the embassy...which is NOT our area of responsiblity for security......YOUR blame should lie with the HOST nation....but your political partisan hack mind frame can not see past your hatered...you will continue to ignore common sence because you are politicaly blind

"That acknowledged, all the cool kidZ refer to it as "Peep-hole" magazine, donchaknow?

Ya don't wanna lose any cool cred yerself, now do ya?"

-Spud

"Peep-hole" huh? Damn, I did not know that...

Fortunately Spud, I live on a very small street. I require very little street cred here. Which is good...I've spent most of it(quite willing)on my little girl.

Fortunately Spud, I live on a very small street. I require very little street cred here. Which is good...I've spent most of it(quite willing)on my little girl.

~Mr Soul

As long as yer not bogged down in long term street demerits you should be alright!

Spud=5, Bushfucker/goatfucker=0

~Badgerwest

...to start its the responsiblitity of the HOST nation to maintain a secure enviorment for ambassies in its country.

~Bill Richardson

Bwa hahahahahaha!

Oh crap, yer being serious, aren't you?

Wot part of "illegal invasion and occupation that's led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, massive ethnic cleansing, millions of refugees, a decrease in security and living conditions for all, enviromental devastation leading to deformed fetal development, multiple torture and murder scandals, nobody in the entire fucking country wants you there" are you simply not getting?

You know, ...asides from ALL OF IT?!

Yer unjustified apologetics fer the BushCo regime who've done nothing to earn your support and shiatloads to earn your emnity are a large part of the problem here.

You refuse to recognise even the tiniest glimmer of reality in yer quest to become the ultimate mindless, unblinking "useful idiot".

Sad is that.

Be Well.

I just love these useless fucks on the Right. They will call out the attacks that happen under Clinton and Carters watches but better not mention the same that happened under their right winged fuck up Dubya. Oh they will make every god damned piss poor excuse for His failings around. Turn about is fairplay CMBELL73 Live it love it learn it.

Larry

Iraq Increased Terrorism Worldwide?

"Excluding Iran and Afghanistan" columns show scarcely any difference between pre- and post- invasion terrorism. Including Iraq and Afghanistan in the term worldwide is at least misleading, if not downright dishonest--they're war zones and things labeled "terrorist attacks" within them may very well be military attacks with a different name slapped on. But even if it is terrorism, it's not worldwide if it's kept only to the two war zones."

Wellll, that's inconvenient, isn't it.

www.danbrauer.us

#57 | Posted by KBM

Ha Ha!!! So, when it comes to applying the Geneva Convention they're not a military force but when it comes to counting terrorist attacks they suddenly are a military force.

Ohhh, I found this one:

Iraq Increased Terrorism Worldwide?

~KBR (a wholly owned subsidiary of Helliburton)

Yes, the guy who tried to make the case that wot was going on in Iraq and Afghanstan did not qualify as terrorism and who apparently is unaware that terror is in the eye of the beholder. In the eyes of the Iraqis, the Afghanis and the
Palestinians the US and Israel and two of the biggest terrorists on the planet. Spud doesn't expect you to be able to see that but thought it worth pointing out nonetheless. Also the real spike in global terror will begin when the children who lived through this fuckshow as refugees, orphans and PTSD cases grow up into an AQ recruiting dream team.

How the fuck do you think the Taliban started?

Left the following post on yer little whackjob blogsite with the other 4 posts it attracted...

First, how can you exclude Iraq and Afghanistan from the equation with any sense of legitimacy? Is this a "war" against a national army ala WWII? No, these are one sided "wars", resource wars who's goal is to take once nationalised oil industries and turn them into the property of western based multinationals including Exxon and BP. The people in these countries have more right to shoot at and blow up American soldiers than vice versa. America has the same right to remain in these countries that Hitler had to be in Paris.

Secondly, Terrorism isn't the giant bugaboo yer fearless leaders have led you to believe. That's BS designed to supplant the earlier excuse that America could go where ever and kill whom ever based on the fact that a "cold war" was going on.

Not only is America less safe because of a spike in global terrorism (or more precidely an increased sympathy fer violent Jihadists caused by America's illegal and immoral profit-driven actions in the ME), but America is also less safe because you've pissed off a lot of traditional allies and spent yerselves into a hole you can't get easily out of especially while the corruption on K Street and Wall Street still infect all branches of government.

Finally, Mother Jones was a real person, a woman, an American and an activist who stood up for the rights of the people, who are still mostly being trampled on today.

Learn that.

Learn something fer Christ's sake.

Be Well.

Not counting the 3000 dead American Civilians in that one attack".

#26 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at

ALL RIGHT ALREADY>>>I LEFT OUT SINCE 9/11

geesh............

#33 | Posted by bushlovertwo at 2009-01-11 04:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's Ok.

We all make mistakes and as long as we admit them, it's all good with me.

All I know is that most the world that hates us is looking forward to Bush being gone & the messiah taking over & that terrorists were all for a Bush loss in the elections & that tells me all I need to know. They are going to want the person in office who suits THEIR interest not ours. If everyone would get over hating Bush, maybe they could be honest about that. I for one appreciate the president for not sucking "polls" for every decision he made. Don't worry, the world will be a utopia in 9 days remember? Just hang in there!

First the Anthrax attacks, probably insitigated on Democrats to ram the s called "Patriot Act" through Congress. Kills several mail handlers, butno Congressmen.

Almost immediately a teenage copycat flys a Cessna into a Florida High Rise. Kills himself.

Then for more almost three months Mohamad and Malvo are shooting people as they fill up gas.

Then the ElAl Ticket Counter in LAX is attacked with a machine gun.

Much later a Muslim teenager shoots six dead in Trolley Square in Salt Lake City. He is not the first of this type since 9-11. Never the less officials claim thes incidents are not terror related. Those deeply vested in the legitimacy of our vicious Government need to believe this.

In actuality around a dozen domestic attacks occur on domestic soil while Hannity, Rush and Bush Lover Two furiously repeat the lie that Shrub's outrageous unconstitutional behavior is justified by good results. Good results is another lie in an unprecedented string of lies eight years long.

But how many years were between the first and second worldtrade center attack? This self congratulatory bullshit is political grandstanding of the worst kind. If you want to make the world safe from terrorism, stop the killing and stealing by the worlds greatest perpetrator of terror, the United States Military Industrial Complex.

Wall Street (one example the Bush Family Friend Ken Lay) is behind all the corruption that spiked electricity and gasoline, then housing and finally the entire economy. Our nation, epecially our foriegn policy, is run by thugs with minds and ethics just like the mafia. Stop this and you stop terror.

"Stop this and you stop terror"

Really? Well Mr. Fix It, don't forget get "Allah" on board or we're still fucked. Stupid.

Yeah Clinton kept us safe, 1st wtc towers, the federal building, two emabassies, the ss cole. Oh yeah safe safe safe safe.

JMFJ,

That's because, in the end, the Democrats and Republicans report to and stand for the same thing, the Military Industrial Complex. Eisenhower, a Republican warned us about this impending problem fair and sqaure.

Wall Street (one example the Bush Family Friend Ken Lay) is behind all the corruption that spiked electricity and gasoline, then housing and finally the entire economy. Our nation, epecially our foriegn policy, is run by thugs with minds and ethics just like the mafia. Stop this and you stop terror.

Sorry son but Enron is not even close to Wall Street. The State Legislature in California is responsible for leaving loopholes that Enron just took advantage of. Brilliant trading strategy.

As far as housing goes, if there was still a 20% down payment requirement for mortgages there would never have been a problem. Congress changed that.

As far as crude goes, it is not just Wall street trading Crude. It is traded globally. Oil companies, Airline companies all are hedging crude

#15 Posted by Hans

There you go again, Hans. What is so spectacular about the fact that we caught the people responsible for the '93 bombing? They were on our soil, Hans. It is a much different scenario when we are talking about finding someone hiding in caves on the border of two lawless countries. I wish you would quit using that, 'they're rotting in jail' BS. Where else do you expect them to be?

"Where else do you expect them to be?"

TIMBI 2,

Enron's behavior was illegal before and after California legislation, but Cheney's "Energy Task Force" installed Ken Lay's co-conspirator as head of FERC who subsequently refused to press charges.

The deregulation of California Energy Markets was accomplished by "Free Market" cheerleader Republican politicians, under Governor Wilson. Democrat Gray had the consequences shoved down his throat. The CEC rolled over.

While your statement is true regarding down payments, it appears to be an attempt to deflect attention away from the fact the Shrub promoted these loans under the "ownership society" and had webpages dedicated to cheap and easy loans as Government policy. When the Ponzi scheme collpased they removed the page. But the principal culprit was Greenspan who facilitated these programs in an effort to win the 2004 election for the Republican Party, which he favored very publically. Congress and the White House had less power than the Fed in this regard.

As well documented as possible (because most oil trades are secret) yesterday 60 minutes outlined how Wall Street Speculation drove the price of oil up and down, making huge profits in both directions without ever taking possesion of any oil. They also documented how Morgan-Stanley, one who actually does take possession of the oil, has a larger oil position than ExxonMobil. These operations account for virtually all of their profits last year.

60 minutes proved that supplies and prices were up even as demand collapsed. There is a huge difference between speculators and real users. One shuffles paper, the other produces real goods and servoices. I'll bet you can guess which is which.

60 minutes also disproved RiR's asssertion that it is a zero sum game in which the speculator must take possession of the oil. They routinely trade daily without taking possession of anything.

The article that started this whole thread is BS.

This study published in 2007 by "Human Security Brief , an annual report funded by the governments of Canada, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden and Britain." say that the Rand study is wrong. Terrorism has gone down.

Here is the link you can read it for yourselves:

"But I hate to interrupt a great leftwing circle jerk with facts."

That same article states that "many US think-tanks continue to report sharp increases.

Data of the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT), funded by the US Department of Homeland Security, points to more than a fourfold increase in worldwide deaths due to terrorism from 1998 to 2006. The sharpest increase came after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Other institutes have reached similar conclusions, including the US National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC)."

Which hardly makes what the "Human Security Brief" states "facts". Also note that the two institutes the article mentioned are hardly "leftwing".

"Which hardly makes what the "Human Security Brief" states "facts". Also note that the two institutes the article mentioned are hardly "leftwing"."

#80 | Posted by AILtd

Again this was a joint study funded by Canada, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden and Britain and they disagree. I didn't say they were left wing. I only mentioned that DR is a leftwing circle jerk.

Rusty, after 1993, Clinton kept us safe for 7 years AND caught and prosecuted those responsible.
Don't be so stupid. When they want to hit us again, they will.

Only thing is we will be a lot broker the next attack. The idea is to chip away at the financial power... they are succeeding.

the "War on Drugs" brought more drugs.

"War on Homelessness" brought more homeless.

#66 Posted by Larry

Larry, the difference is that Clinton did nothing after these attacks. We are doing something now and if Clinton had any balls we would have been doing it since his presidency. It is very fair game to bring up the USS Cole and embassy attacks because he did nothing in response.

Damn, Hans, did you just totally ignore the logic of my post? I said, the '93 bombers should be in jail because they were on our soil. Do you really want to give Clinton credit for a job that the police do? Never mind, I know you do. Do you really think, though, that the two are comparable? Yeah, you probably do. I haven't been here long but I've been here long enough to know that you'll just end up posting exactly the same thing 5 or 6 more times if I say anything else.

"Damn, Hans, did you just totally ignore the logic of my post?"

"Logic" of your post?

I'd flag that as funny but something tells me the "logic" of my humor would fly way over your head.

Meanwhile, the perps of the 1993 attack on the WTC are rotting in jail.

Where's Osama bin Laden, you know, the one we were promised was wanted dead or alive? The one we were told should be brought to justice?

That Osama bin Laden.

"Logic" of your post. Damn! That IS funny!!!

Hans

""Logic" of your post. Damn! That IS funny!!!"

What I find funny is that you're on another thread on this site arguing there is no such thing as terrorists, asking me if Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, but you have yet to bring up that topic here on a thread that points out another Bush failure.

I was proud to step in and vote for Obama last November, and I'm really hopeful for the future. I think he will be a thousand times better than Bush if he just does a half assed job. But on that thread its talking about how Obama will close Gitmo, so you argue there are no "terrorists." Here it points out yet another Bush failure and you make no mention of your "terrorist" argument.

The problem with both sides of the political aisle in this country is the blind diehards who change their positions on a dime depending on what is best for their beliefs.

"The article that started this whole thread is BS.

This study published in 2007 by "Human Security Brief , an annual report funded by the governments of Canada, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden and Britain." say that the Rand study is wrong. Terrorism has gone down."

Here is the link you can read it for yourselves:

www.irishtimes.com

But I hate to interrupt a great leftwing circle jerk with facts.
#79 | Posted by FreddyK at 2009-01-12 03:18 PM"

Speaking of BS, FreddyK...
The study does NOT say the Rand study is wrong. The study DOES highlight an interesting/salient point tho': a large percentage of all the terrorist fatalities are due to Iraq.

Consider two items from your own link:
1. "If you pulled (Iraq) out, terrorism was steady or maybe slightly lower," James Ellis, research and program director at MIPT, said. "It has had a distortion effect."

and

2. "There are arguments for including the many attacks on civilians by so-called non-state groups - insurgents and militants - in Iraq. Terrorism experts usually define terrorism as intentional, politically motivated violence against civilians and many of the fatalities in Iraq would qualify. But even experts from MIPT and other institutes acknowledge that Iraq, where violence against civilians by militants is a daily occurrence five years after the invasion, is a special case not necessarily linked to any global trend."

As long as we're interrupting with facts: it matters little to the victims that their suffering/deaths are "a special case not necessarily linked to any global trend.". The glaringly obvious point is that the majority of terrorist attacks is DIRECTLY the result of our actions in Iraq.

It is indeed ironic that the US now takes credit for decreasing the level of violence (whether due to The Surge, bribing the Shia militants, or some combination with other factors) in Iraq. So, are we to be pleased/congratulated that Iraq is beginning to get back to its level of existence BEFORE the US invaded?

I can appreciate that ANY decrease in violence is good news. Who here in the "great leftwing circle jerk" feels otherwise? Personally tho', it is small compensation for the sacrifices that have been endured.

"Meanwhile, the perps of the 1993 attack on the WTC are rotting in jail."

Posted by Hans

Yes they got the underlings but the main guy was Bin Laden's brother in law who was trained by Bin Laden in Afganistan and he wasn't killed until 2007 and not by the US.

oh please spud....

are you saying the attack on the drug store was due to faulty intelligence and that the people who died there were killed because of that or even the damage done to it?????

hhhhhhhmmmmmmmmm I guess blow job gets a pass on that one....

Where's Osama bin Laden?

Am I the only person who goes to bed at night feeling pretty good about this guy being DEAD? With the amount of hubris this guy walked around with, there is no way he'd be out of the limelight this long on purpose. I would even submit that he is arrogant enough in his own self-importance to do something like tape messages ahead of time to accommodate the inevitibality of his eventual demise. Dead, dead, dead!

I tend to agree with you and even if he's not dead, his quality of life would have to be just a spot above living in west texas where there are nothing more but rattlesnakes and tumbleweeds.....

again...i wonder if he will make an appearance right before or after the ascension of the messiah to the white house.

"again...i wonder if he will make an appearance right before or after the ascension of the messiah to the white house"

No matter the message, whether inflammatory & threatening or conciliatory to the new leader now that evil Bush is out of office, it is good for Obama. If OBL comes out swinging, it'll be that the terrorist's knows BO means business! If he makes nice, it will be how our standing in the world has been restored & they see someone willing to stop the bloodshed blah, blah. I for one would see the fist-shaking as proof that they want to kill all of us, (people with any sense should know this already) dem & rep, black & white, and making nice means they smell fear & weakness which is by far the more scary of the 2.

If OBL were caught and brought to trial, he would be released for not enough evidence.

If OBL were caught and brought to trial, he would be released for not enough evidence.

bOoB -- memory thing again. You've brought this up maybe 60 or 70 times before.

It is very fair game to bring up the USS Cole and embassy attacks because he did nothing in response.

#84 | Posted by everlong at 2009-01-12 06:10 PM | Reply | Flag

His response was the correct response. Attacking countries that were no danger to us was the wrong response.

Would you have had Clinton send in the military to find these people? That's what Bush did---you probably think it was correct to attack Iraq.

Finding the attackers of the first WTC and the Cole and the Embassies and 911---should ALL have been handled by intelligence agencies to find the perps, then send in kill teams to do the job right.

As to your assertion that it was OBLs brother that was the mastermind of the 93 WTC attack---mere speculation--you have no such knowledge.

The current theory is that Ramzi Yousef was the mastermind behind the 93 attacks, and he's sitting in prison. Do you have a link that says it was OBL's brother?

Is their anything this man has touched that he hasn't completely fucked up?

Where's Osama bin Laden?

#91 | Posted by HATEBIGGOV

Bagdad John McCain knows where he is and how to catch him.

Why isn't he providing this information to our armed forces to act on?

dUmmY

The memory problem is yours. Every time I have brought it up before, no one has been able to give any evidence that would hold up in court. His "confession" three years after the event could be thrown out by a first year law student. In fact, I would say that if OBL gave himself up, he would mysteriously die before the trial started. They would have to investigate 911 seriously, in an unbiased manner, and that will never happen.

Every time I have brought it up before, no one has been able to give any evidence that would hold up in court.

So you think that on the 71st time you post it someone will? And you call me the dummy? LOL

As is often cited on this blog, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

dumMY

You must think the same people read the same posts everytime they are posted, That's just ONE of the things that makes you a dUMmy.

I post about bin Laden when people who are talking about him act as though his guilt is a foregone conclusion---people like hatebigov and everlong. It's not all about you---not every post I write has you in mind. Just because you have seen me remark about a subject, doesn't mean the subject can't be brought up again with new people--or even rehashed with people who were in the previous discussion. If it bothers you--read someone elses post. Simple isn't it.

But since you brought it up--I guess you agree that if OBL were brought to trial--he would walk. Otherwise, you have some evidence?

I guess you agree that if OBL were brought to trial--he would walk. Otherwise, you have some evidence?

Yes I do. Irrefutable AAMOF. And I presented it, but you obviously forgot. But I'm not doing it again. Too bad for you. You should take notes.

Much like a suspected cop killer in Miami, OBL would never be brought to trial, but rather be killed while attempts were made to bring him in.

Much like a suspected cop killer in Miami, OBL would never be brought to trial, but rather be killed while attempts were made to bring him in.

#103 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-01-13 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag

Think Lee Harvey Oswald. No trial--no questions.

Bob,
I am not sure if OBL would be killed to silence him or by over-zealous and emotional humans who catch him, but there is no doubt that there would not be a trial.

Kanrei

I wonder why they don't try him in absentia--even in a world court. They must know they couldn't get a conviction.

Bob,
He admitted guilt so the need for a trial kind of lessens. Also, without his arrest, the trial would serve no real purpose and be a waste of time and money.

OBL has NEVER been indicted for the crimes of 9/11. His current FBI status is based on the embassy bombings in Africa and nothing more.

Posted Online on Monday, 12 June 2006 12:09 IST

FBI: Bin Laden Not Wanted for 9/11?

By Enver Masud

The Milli Gazette Online

11 June 2006

The FBI's "Most Wanted Terrorists" web page does not state that Bin Laden is wanted for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The FBI page states: "Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."

When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the FBI's web page, Rex Tomb of the FBI's public affairs unit is reported to have said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

Kanrei

His confession is meaningless. It was made three years after the event, and he had motives for lying. Much like a prisoner bragging about his exploits to other cons to have status, three years after the event, things were looking good for OBL. His recruitment and status among his people was high---for him to claim responsibility was to enhance his status. Even confessions taken in police stations are thrown out. Even confessions that aren't thrown out, still have trials.

You don't confess and go straight to jail with no court appearance, ever. There has to be a judge that sentences the prisoner, and every time that happens, the judge asks the prisoner how he pleads---if OBL pleads "Not Guilty", there is a trial.

Keeping track of who is crazier around here is damn near impossible.
One day I'm sure it's boOb, but then Celery shows up. Then skidmark pops in, and I remember he's really just a dumb son of a bitch with a hint of crazy, so he doesn't really count. Not to be outdone, bani posts some of his lunacy. Rednecocosamville deserves honorable mention for creating handles and asking and answering his own questions in a lame attempt to look like he had somebody actually agreeing with "himself".
In the end, it's apparent that the title belongs to Celery. boOb's craziness can be blamed on senility.

Ah, the smell of Tony Aroma...The Chief 911 Kook and Obama's "Head" man.

Bin Laden, in a September 28, 2001 interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat, is reported to have said:

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.

Experts dismiss the video tape "found in a house in Jalalabad", Afghanistan, which allegedly shows Bin Laden confessing to the September 11 attacks. In a December 20, 2001, broadcast by German TV channel Das Erste "two independent translators and an expert on oriental studies found the White House's translation not only to be inaccurate, but manipulative."

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."

His confession is meaningless. It was made three years after the event

This is a fact. Carlos the Jackal confessed to terrorist attacks he never did, so it has been done before, but you asked why there has not been a trial and I simply said his confession does a lot to stop one. His also not being in custody lowers the willingness to go through the expense and time of a trial that would result in nothing.

For those who claim there have not been terror attacks under Bush are you forgetting about Virginia Tech? The killer there boasted of being a terrorist. And what about the anthrax attacks after 9-11? Not counting those?

As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie.

If he said this, and 3 years later said he was behind 9-11, then he lied either on Sept 28,2001 or 3 years later and either one negates his above statement.

Kind of like the pre-Iraq war debates.

Saddam supports terrorists!
How do you know?
He said he does.

Saddam has WMDs.
How do you know he does when he says he doesn't.
Saddam lies and cannot be trusted.

It cannot be both ways.

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."

So Bush's FBI Director is lying too 101?

You wouldn't know the truth if it smacked the taste out of your worthless mouth....

Kanrei...

The videos where he accepts responsibility are flawed in a number of ways. He is fat and in good health. He has black hair and uses his right hand instead of his left. He is wearing a gold ring which is strictily forbiden for men in Islam. Unlike all of his other speeches he does not mention the suffering of muslims or Jews.

So Bush's FBI Director is lying too 101?

You wouldn't know the truth if it smacked the taste out of your worthless mouth....

#117 | Posted by tonyroma at 2009-01-13 02:07 PM | Reply |

I didn't comment on Mueller Aroma. I commented on the fact you're an Obama lemming and a 911 conspiracy kook that changed your tune after every debunking.

Face it, the only thing that took the "Conspiracy Kook" label off of you was the scary way you went about adoring Obama.

Tony,
Food for thought for certain. Personally, I don't know if Obama was or was not involved in 9-11 and I really don't know what would change if I did know.

Kanrei

Maybe one of those tapes wasn't really Osama. Look alikes and sound equipment for voice manipulation are possibilities. Tapes can easily be manipulated with the right equipment and skills--either by their side or ours---assuming we have anyone on our side.

Bob,
Then any evidence we get showing either way cannot be trusted and we will never ever know. Kind of like UFOs or ghosts...an expert said in 2003 that photoshop and home cameras have gotten so good that we can no longer even trust our own eyes as to if what we see is real or not and, as a result, certain things can now never be proved.

Kind of like the pre-Iraq war debates.

Saddam supports terrorists!
How do you know?
He said he does.

Saddam has WMDs.
How do you know he does when he says he doesn't.
Saddam lies and cannot be trusted.

It cannot be both ways.

The Demon is a liar but he will mix the truth with lies to confuse us. The lies are very powerful. Don't listen to them.

Kanrei

There are other types of evidence than photos. Circumstantial evidence counts also. Follow the money usually turns up some things also.

Right now, I see discrepencies in the actions and timelines of the government story, and if they are innocent--they shouldn't mind a trial. What do you think the chances are of getting Cheney of Bush on a lie detector? Lie detectors aren't reliable--sure--but the government uses them all the time--as do police departments. If you pass the lie detector--they take you off the suspect list. I'd like to take Bush off my suspect list--Cheney too. People forget--they are simple employees.

"For those who claim there have not been terror attacks under Bush are you forgetting about Virginia Tech? The killer there boasted of being a terrorist"

I live in VA & have a neice in her 2nd year @ Tech & that may be the stupidest thing I've ever read & I've read plenty of stupid shit here & elsewhere. Besides, wouldn't it make more sense to blame Bush for the lack of mental health services & blah, blah, blah? You're reaching even for you & I mean big time!

That is the problem with libs. Its all about blaming others. The guy who did the shooting @ Tech is responsible & the terrorists who do the deed is responsible. Its not due to their circumstances or conditions or they didn't or did get this or that. It is about making a CHOICE, (libs love choice don't they?) to do something wrong. Of course, we have to spread the blame so your lib lawyer friends will have more people to sue right? Idiot!

I see discrepencies in the actions and timelines of the government story, and if they are innocent--they shouldn't mind a trial.

The problem is that before we have a trial we have a pre-trial to determine if sufficient evidence exists to go to trial. I don't believe the anomolies and holes within the official story are significant enough to outweigh the considerable evidence coroborating the government's version of events.

I am confident that any suit brought on this gets thrown out. In short, no trial.

The Demon is a liar but he will mix the truth with lies to confuse us. The lies are very powerful. Don't listen to them.

#123 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-01-13 02:41 PM

Exactly, do not listen to him either when he says what you want to hear or what you don't.

Osama could tell me I was on fire and I would still look in the mirror to check.

Circumstantial evidence counts also.

Not that much when it is all you have.

Follow the money usually turns up some things also.

Usually, but not always. Too many people have profited from 9-11 for it to be the "gotcha" proof.

Terrorism Deaths Increased Fivefold Under Bush

What an asinine factoid.

Kind of like saying the number of Jews killed during FDR's watch increased 1000 fold.

Has anyone ever noticed that since Clinton was impeached for getting a blowjob, porn sites and films have increased five fold and more?

which do you prefer, purple hearts or purple helmets?

Jeff J

There should be no anomalies--no holes in the government version if it were factual. Simple things like--why no video of the plane that hit the White House? Why not release the information on the black boxes of the planes? The black box information might hurt the survivors families feelings? Too bad---people died, this is war--greater sacrifices have been made. Release the black box information. If I had a family member on board, I would want ALL the information I could get as to who did it.

Circumstantial evidence counts also.

Not that much when it is all you have.

The government seems to have convinced quite a few people, and that is all they have.

Follow the money usually turns up some things also.

Usually, but not always. Too many people have profited from 9-11 for it to be the "gotcha" proof.

I was thinking more of the terrorists who flew the planes---their funding--where they got it from--how it was transferred. There should be records.

#129 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-01-13 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag

BBob,

Understood regarding the desire for full disclosure.

I was merely pointing out that the holes are insufficient to warrant a trial.

Kind of like saying the number of Jews killed during FDR's watch increased 1000 fold.

#130 | Posted by Beachbuzz at 2009-01-13 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag

The asinine statement is yours. FDR did nothing to promote the killing af Jews, while Bushs actions have directly affected the amount of terrorist attacks in the world. I'm sure people have told you that you lack depth. Believe them.

I was merely pointing out that the holes are insufficient to warrant a trial.

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-01-13 03:25 PM | Reply

Says who says YOU??? If there isn't sufficient eveidence then the triaql would show that. What I think the real score3 is You don't want the fucking truth because it would shatter Your whole view of this Government under Dubya. THAT is what I think. If people knew the truth about their Government they wouldn't like themselves too much.

Larry

why no video of the plane that hit the White House?

Ummm - because planes have never hit the White House?

What do I win?

You're wrong, Larry.

This shit has been debated ad nauseum on this site and elsewhere. The little anomolies that have been trotted out are grossly overwhelmed by all of the other evidence that coroborates the government's official story regarding what happened.

Occam's Razor and all that.

THEN PUT THE SHIT ON TRIAL WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF JEFFJ THE FUCKING TRUTH1 !!!!!!!!!!!!'

Larry

Obama lemming -- what's that, someone pushed off a cliff by a Disney filmmaker? Know of what ye speak, sir!

Put what exactly on trial? You have nobody in custody; you have nobody to hold accountable. What exactly would a trial do? Who would pay for it? Who would run it? Who would be the judges for it? Under what laws would you run the trial? Where?

Obama lemming -- what's that, someone pushed off a cliff by a Disney filmmaker? Know of what ye speak, sir!

#140 | Posted by mrbgoode at 2009-01-13 03:37 PM | Reply |

Only a retard would think that.

Try harder.

Trial for what, Larry?

You may not be aware of this but our judicial system follows a procedure.

First, the Bush administration would have to be charged with a crime.

Second, before going to trial the evidence for the prosecution would have to be presented to the court to determine if it's sufficient enough to warrant a trial - it isn't.

So, even if you got your wish and the Bush administration was charged with some sort of crime regarding this, it would get thrown out before ever reaching trial.

You may not like it, but that's reality.

Put what exactly on trial? You have nobody in custody; you have nobody to hold accountable. What exactly would a trial do? Who would pay for it? Who would run it? Who would be the judges for it? Under what laws would you run the trial? Where?

Posted by kanrei at 2009-01-13 03:38 PM | Reply

The whole governments "Official story" Why couldn't it be done?? We hold trials against defendants that are not even arrested so why couldn't we do the same with this?? if the Government had nothing to hide it should be a slam dunk for them to win. What say You kanrei Want the truth or do You want to bury it in Your conscience??

Larry

The whole governments "Official story" Why couldn't it be done??

I don't think our Constitution has provisions for that.

The whole governments "Official story" Why couldn't it be done?? We hold trials against defendants that are not even arrested so why couldn't we do the same with this??

So you want a trial over the events of the day? That really would result in a big nothing. You have to be specific when going to trial, you cannot just say "the government's offical story." What aspect of the story? Who are you holding accountable? What exactly is the crime charged and against whom? What evidence do you have to support this charge?

Trials deal in specifics. It is not enough to prove John killed Bill. You must charge John with killing Bill (1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter,etc) and then prove that charge. If you charge John with first degree murder and, even though John killed Bill it was not pre-meditated, then John is innocent of 1st degree murder.

So you want a trial over the events of the day? That really would result in a big nothing. You have to be specific when going to trial, you cannot just say "the government's offical story." What aspect of the story? Who are you holding accountable? What exactly is the crime charged and against whom? What evidence do you have to support this charge?

Posted by kanrei at 2009-01-13 03:46 PM | Reply

Obviously You don't want the truth You want to buy the Goivernments story because it quells Your guts. If the Government has nothing to hide then the case should be a slam dunk to win. What are You so afraid of Kanrei?? The fucking truth??? What am I charging I am charging the Government had complicity in the carrying out of the September 11th attacks. I am saying people in Our Government are responsible for its actions. That is what I am saying.

Larry

What do you mean no sufficient evidence? Bin Laden is the leader of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda committed the acts of 9/11. Thus, Bin Laden is responsible if even indirectly. People get charged and convicted all the time in this country for being accomplices or being indirectly involved in something.

And this crap about 9/11 conspiracies has got to stop. Watch the video of the towers coming down and keep your eyes on the section where the plane went in. You will clearly see the building fall on top of itself with no help from any "planted" explosives. This is one part of the conspiracy theory that is almost laughable. If it weren't so sad it would be.

Oh, and Hans, your little response is exactly what I expected. You are so predictable and nowhere near as smart as you would like people to believe.

Obviously You don't want the truth

Larry -- everyone wants the truth. Kanrei is simply saying that you can't put a story on trial. There are Constitutionally outlined procedures and requirements that have to followed to conduct a trial.

Bushs actions have directly affected the amount of terrorist attacks in the world

When you are at war, the enemy sometimes attacks back. Terrorists choose the easy car bomb, suicide bombers etc. vs frontal assults with the US military. To blame Bush for the so-called increase is dumb. It's a global war Bobby Boy.

And Obama will continue where Bush left off. Ever since Obama started receiveing the PDB's, his tone on National Security has taken a drastic shift. He's is even waffeling on his stance to close Gitmo.

BTW - What will you and your ilk talk about in 7 days? Bush will be gone and the messiah will be installed and all of sudden the Obama Government will save the world?

Where Goatman does it prevent what I am asking for tell Me where Goatman

Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Oh, and Hans, your little response is exactly what I expected. You are so predictable ...

That's our Hansie!

The question isn't "where does it prevent", the question is "where does it allow"? Your quote specifically states under what conditions a trial by jury can take place. I see states, ambassadors, etc. I don't see story.

But I could be wrong. Get a lawyer and give it a whirl. Let us know how it comes out.

I was merely pointing out that the holes are insufficient to warrant a trial.

#134 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-01-13 03:25 PM | Reply | Flag

I believe that they are. The simple fact that the United States was without air cover for 90 minutes should be enough for a trial of someone, and that trial would lead to the rest like the domino theory.

Some interesting questions for Cheney.

What time did he arrive at the command post?

What was the order that he wouldn't change?

"During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice Presidentthe plane is 50 miles outthe plane is 30 miles out.and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?"

Goat,
Some people, like Bush, say screw the rules when it gets in the way. Larry is appearing like one of those people who cannot tolerate the rule of law and instead wants results.

It's obvious You folks don't want the truth. You would rather live with the "Official" story so it eases Your minds. Some of us aren't so satisfied with that. Some of us want the full truth. It's easy to see who wants it and who doesn't.

Larry

LaRyMoHr, BeefAloboob, and skidmark...Combined you guys have 1 GED.

See a pattern?

It's obvious You folks don't want the truth.

Larry -- get a grip, dude. I said in my 150 we all want the truth. But you can't change up rules to get it.

And if you did put a story on trial, how would it defend itself? The whole concept is ludicrous when trying to apply the laws of the United States.

What do you mean no sufficient evidence? Bin Laden is the leader of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda committed the acts of 9/11.

#149 | Posted by everlong at 2009-01-13 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag

What evidence do you cite for your statement? What evidence shows bin Laden and Al Qaeda were responsible? That was the point. There is not enough evidence to convict bin Laden. That's what we are looking for.

Larry is appearing like one of those people who cannot tolerate the rule of law and instead wants results.

Posted by kanrei at 2009-01-13 04:00 PM | Reply

Where in the helkl does the Rule of Law prevent tyhje Trial Kanrei be intellectually honest here. Where is the Rule of Law that the citizenry can not question in a court of law with regards to the actions
of
ones Government. Be intellectually honest now Kanrei.

Larry

Awwwwwwwwww poor 101Chairborne has to stroke His miserable ego just like Mike Siesel et al. Thats why You are here 101Chairborne to stroke thqat massively deflated ego of Yours. Cause if You had any ego at all You wouldn't do half the shit that You do.

Larry

And if you did put a story on trial, how would it defend itself? The whole concept is ludicrous when trying to apply the laws of the United States.

#159 | Posted by goatman at 2009-01-13 04:05 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

The Defendant would be the Government would it not?? Wouldn't the Plantiff be the ones bringing the charge against the story?? Seems pretty cut and dried to Me.

Larry

Seems pretty cut and dried to Me.

Larry

#163 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-01-13 04:10 PM | Reply

Then get up off your lard ass and make it happen. What's stopping you? Well, besides lack of an education and lack of motivation? Wait, see another pattern here?

The Defendant would be the Government would it not?? Wouldn't the Plantiff be the ones bringing the charge against the story?? Seems pretty cut and dried to Me.

Then get a lawyer and do it. Let us know how it comes out.

If this was a lega solution, don't you think someone would've done it by now?

Someday You will get an ego 101Chairborne. Until then You will be a drip.

and again....NOT ONE ATTACK ON AMERICAN HOMEFRONT which I believe is one of his duties but I am sure that libs will skew and bend that to fit whatever nonsense they want to come up with.........

and I dont care if I did end it with a preposition

GRAMMAR POLICE WILL JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT>..

#6 | Posted by bushlovertwo at 2009-01-11 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Indeed. We obviously provoked the little buggers into attacking us on 911. Then we retaliated. Then...SURPRISE...instead of apologizing and making reparations, they continued attacking U.S. and western interests wherever they could...but have been unable to pull off anything in the U.S. But, it's all Bush's fault all of the time...to include anything that happens from now on.

It's really quite convenient for the obstreporous lefty loonies. Takes little serious thinking.

But...we will be saved by "Change We Can Live With" by apologizing to the terrorists, paying them reparations, and withdrawing any presence anywhere within the Grand Caliphate. Then everyone will love us in spite of our decadent western life style which they despise. It will be up to the next generation to convert to Islam and Sharia Law to placate those we have so offended by daring to draw breath.

#167 | Posted by MACV1972 at 2009-01-13 04:26 PM

I understand what you are saying MACV1972, but I think it is a vastly over-simplified explanation of the situation and, as such, can lead one to the wrong conclusions.

For example (by paragraph):
- In paragraph 1: if your statements were true, then why have terrorist attacks (outside of Iraq) remained essentially constant these last few years (see FreddyK's link above)?

- In paragraph 2: what can I say? This matter is hardly convenient no matter how obstreporous (good word!, even if incorrectly applied and misspelled) one is and is being brought up by MANY more than "lefties" (loony or otherwise).

- In paragraph 3: *sigh*, this is just a useless/baiting diatribe. OK, there's is NOTHING that supports your contentions that President Obama's administration will interact with the terrorists in the way you described. There is NOTHING that indicates "they" attacked us because they despise "our decadent western life style". Similarly, there is NOTHING that supports the idea that converting to Islam and Sharia Law will placate them.

Given the region's history (ancient and recent) of Iraq, it WOULD appear that the situation WOULD improve (especially in the long-term) if the US left Iraq and SOON!

What I find amazing is we, as a nation, are extremely affronted (and rightly so!) by any foreign invasion (e.g., the British in 1775 & 1812, Pearl Harbor in 1941, even 9/11 on a much smaller scale), but somehow we do not comprehend that the Iraqi are less than happy with our presence in their country. We might argue that our presence is for "their own good", but just imagine how we would feel/react (even IF it were for our own good) in a similar situation. Food for thought (as long as we are doing a little serious thinking).

One month after the worst attack in U.S. history, George W. Bush watched a 100-minute long Anthony Hopkins film called Hearts in Atlantis.

It is an awful movie, and as it drags on I feel increasingly uneasy. Surely the president should be doing something else. Occasionally he gets a phone call from Andy Card, his chief of staff, who, as I understand it, is in the West Wing meeting with the head of the F.A.A. to determine when Washington's Reagan National Airport will be safe to completely re-open (some flights began operating earlier in the week). Each time the phone rings, I hope the president will excuse himself to join them. But he doesn't. Over the phone, the president tells the men to "get that airport opened up!" and then heads to bed.

That night I leave the White House feeling more anxious about our national security than when I arrived.

excerpted from Brian Smith at HuffPost

So Clinton Caught Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? He was the one who funded the 1993 attack. You people need to look into the 1993 bombing and you will see the people linked between 911 and 1993. Clinton didn't do anything to stop them. Sure the retards who carried out the attack where caught. But the people behind the 1993 attacks where never caught under Clinton. Under Bush Khalid was caught and many more of the "puppet masters". So if you're going to compare Clint to Bush you better know what you're talking about. Some would say 911 might have been stopped if Clinton would have gone after these people.

"So Clinton Caught Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? He was the one who funded the 1993 attack. You people need to look into the 1993 bombing and you will see the people linked between 911 and 1993. Clinton didn't do anything to stop them. Sure the retards who carried out the attack where caught. But the people behind the 1993 attacks where never caught under Clinton. Under Bush Khalid was caught and many more of the "puppet masters". So if you're going to compare Clint to Bush you better know what you're talking about. Some would say 911 might have been stopped if Clinton would have gone after these people.
#170 | Posted by libslayer at 2009-01-13 07:15 PM

Always good advice to know what one is talking about, libslayer.

So..., let's see how you're doing:
1. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was caught by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence in 2003. Mr. Bush was president in 2003. Are you claiming he was responsible for the capture? If so, how about something that backs that up.

2. "Clinton didn't do anything to stop them". You MIGHT be correct, but you'll have to show me something more substantive. Otherwise your claim appears to be no more than wild-eyed partisan ranting. BTW, how do YOU know that Mr. Clinton did nothing?

3. "Some would say 911 might have been stopped if Clinton would have gone after these people." And some would say the Earth is flat, but that would just be another speculative "weasel-worded" statement. That technique, while in popular vogue these days, is pure junk. At least I'll admit my "flat Earth" statement is such. How about you? As long as we're "breezily" tossing about claims, how about you address this one disputing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's confession:

Trueblue,

So based on Robert Baer's publication of HIS opinion, you are swayed?

We will never know the entire facts behind 9/11 nor our government's efforts/methods to stop terrorism. Just like we didn't know the truth/facts or methods behind our efforts during WWII until it was 10-40 years beyond us.

At some point you either give the government some credit for what they do, or like most libs fueled by the 2000 election rage and the 2004 election rage, hate the Bush administration and everything they do based on internet propaganda (most of which is fueled by foreign nations: think Hans, Deathspud and Jeff from Denmark).

You continue to look for cracks in the armor and arm-chair-quarterback every effort from the sidelines.

Until you are upped to a level 5 security clearance, I suggest you and your clan save the conspiracy theories for Oliver Stone and his ilk.

Bottom line, either have the balls to admit you really don't know what the fuck you are talking about or join a militia as required by the constitution of the United States of America and overtake the Government. No links, look it up!

"At some point you either give the government some credit for what they do, or like most libs fueled by the 2000 election rage and the 2004 election rage, hate the Bush administration and everything they do based on internet propaganda (most of which is fueled by foreign nations: think Hans, Deathspud and Jeff from Denmark)." - Beachbuzz

I haven't read the report which started this thread, but the other ones I read talked about the increase in terrorism during the period of our president's "War on Terror". I've not seen this as an indication of hate towards the administration, merely a statistical reflection of the current state of terrorism, especially in light of the "War on Terror" and its effectiveness.

I've not seen this as an indication of hate towards the administration

Where have you been Ailtd???

This entire site was built around a hate for Bush and Co....

"NOT ONE ATTACK ON AMERICAN HOMEFRONT "

Man yanks are stupid. This one can't even spell 'anthrax'

My previous post was a little to subtle for Bush apologists, they are a dumb lot.

How about something a little more obvious?

"This entire site was built around a hate for Bush and Co...." - Beachbuzz

Nope, don't see that. This site actually is probably one of the boards closest to being balanced.

When I first started reading this board, there were a hell of a lot of "traitor" remarks thrown at "libs" (aka, those who opposed the war in Iraq).

More to the point, I was pointing out that the issue was how the "War on Terror" has fared. To say, with some proof, that it hasn't been that successful, just does not strike me as an indication of hatred towards this administration.

What we don't yet know about Bush:

Was it his own stupidity and incompetence that led to the decision to invade Iraq or was it the constant prodding of his necon idiot advisors?

Anyway lesson learned....

Never listen to any asshole with an MBA. They are the dumbest, most incurious idiots on campus.

What we don't yet know about Bush:

Was it his own stupidity and incompetence that led to the decision to invade Iraq or was it the constant prodding of his necon idiot advisors?

Anyway lesson learned....

Never listen to any asshole with an MBA. They are the dumbest, most incurious idiots on campus.

#178 | Posted by Tom_W at 2009-01-13 10:57 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Take what You will from this.

Beachbuzz-you speak as though the hate was not extremely well deserved. Election rage? That's why we hate him? Those were the good old days!

Watching w's press conferences this week was nauseating. I have no idea how you guys still defend him. You speak as though the hate was not extremely well deserved. Election rage? That's why we hate him? Those were the good old days!

Watching w's press conferences this week was nauseating. I have no idea how you guys still defend him.

sorry for the double, Guess that's how nauseated I was.

Man yanks are stupid. This one can't even spell 'anthrax'

My previous post was a little to subtle for Bush apologists, they are a dumb lot.

Boy Tommy, you sure know how to wrinkle an American man's feathers.

Where you born with this quality or did your three breasted mother raise you this way?

If you are British like your post indicates, Churchill would be appaled to even speak your name.

Fruthermore, mind your own business and let us "Yanks", once again, save you from your own demise.

Now go and get some Fish and Chips and fuck off!

Though, as TN_Indep shows, hatred for Bush is very alive and well here. Which is why this board is so much fun, "Bush zombies" vs "Bush haters". I've made quite a bit of pocket change selling popcorn in the stands.

Sell all the popcorn and peanuts you want Altoid. Put some cool aid on the list as well.

We true Americans, will not accept your dire hatred for a man who was our 43rd president. Love him or hate him, he was the President of the United States of America.

I will love or hate Obama as much as you fucks hated a president of the United States of America.

Give me a reason to pounce, and I will. Otherwise, I will give Obama a chance. More than you fucks ever gave Bush!

Amen, brother Beachbuzz...amen

Nice vid Rex...

Thanks dude...I knew you were there.

Always brother.

Aw...just like y'alls' days back at PWZ. Before that imploded and you crawled back here, that is.

I am so pissed at the Obama croud for pushing their BOY on a pedistal, and yet he will not do anything different than BUSH has been doing for 7 years.

Ailtd,Dont underestimate me. (Other than the revolving last post.) My criticisms have and can easily go both ways.

If Obamaco could possibly screw things up like these guys, I'll be spewing venom in that direction.

Like I said, it's earned. I'm not a 'Bush hater'. I'm a corruption and malpractice hater. The constitution is just a goddam piece of paper? Torture? Wiretapping of citizens? Outting a CIA op? Didn't want a 911 investigation? Curveball instead of the CIA to make his wmd case? It's absolutely criminal. but he didn't lie about a bj under oath so that clears him. (I couldn't stomach Bill either but his misdoings don't even register next to this administrations.)

As far as the Retort goes, when you live in TN, it does help to have a good read and sounding board nearby.

Ailtd, did you watch W's press conferences? Did you hear what came out of his mouth? Is this in any way an admirable person?

Best I can figure is the bush lovers of the board are paid shills. It's the only explanation.

BTW Boyd, the PWZ was a fantastic sucess, very few blogs have ever created a strong group of brothers like the PWZ did.....

I would consider the PWZ one of great sucesses of my life....

PWZ 4 Life ....

Rex-
re: PWZ 4 Life ....

What's the web address? I'd like to visit the site.

Rex-
re: PWZ 4 Life ....

What's the web address? I'd like to visit the site.

******
ahahahaaahaha....you're visiting it right now ....

PWZ for life.....!

"the PWZ was a fantastic sucess [sic]"

I think what I find most amusing, in retrospect, is that all you conservative brothers put together couldn't make even a marginal success out of a an endeavor that a liberal (Rogers) runs by himself in his spare time as a hobby.

"If you are British like your post indicates.."

Hilarious watching these bimbo's try to construct arguments with no evidence. It seems to be a yank specialty. No wonder these idiots voted for Bush, twice.

Rex-
It may alarm you to discover that you are only here because Rogers heard your lamentations and decided to allow you to beg your way back and post. You are here at his leisure, and post at his whim.

Torture? Wiretapping of citizens? Outting a CIA op? Didn't want a 911 investigation? Curveball instead of the CIA to make his wmd case?

" am so pissed at the Obama croud for pushing their BOY on a pedistal, and yet he will not do anything different than BUSH has been doing for 7 years."

Is it a coincidence that most wingnut posters are semi-literate? I doubt it.

Torture? Wiretapping of citizens? Outting a CIA op? Didn't want a 911 investigation? Curveball instead of the CIA to make his wmd case?

#201 | Posted by Beachbuzz at 2009-01-14 12:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

Was the entirety of your post intended to be the italicized comment of another poster?

think what I find most amusing, in retrospect, is that all you conservative brothers put together couldn't make even a marginal success out of a an endeavor that a liberal (Rogers) runs by himself in his spare time as a hobby.

Funny how we righty's seem to spoil all of your fun...

Are really fucking serious?

You have not made ONe connection.

I feel sorry for your ilk....leaning to you for advise.

What a dissapointment you are.

The conservative movement fought for 50 years to get to 2003: total legislative and executive power; power over the bureaucracy, and of the US treasury; control of vast armies...

It'll be another fifty at least before our memories have faded enough to give them a second run at destroying the United States.

Boyd, my boy, you should ask Rogers what is what before you speak for him.....

ahahahahhaahaaa, god love ya son....

Rex-
Go back to your music thread if you wish to post music.

PWZ???

Why would anyone go over there after seeing how the idiots post here.

Nothing would be at all interesting or informative, all goatman all the time would turn anyone off in a few minutes.

You have not made ONe connection.

The "ONe" connection I wanted to make was to the PWZ site, which was such a "fantastic sucess", but I can't seem to locate it.

Moneywar - is afraid...of the truth

We have done all we can Rex...

REX-
When the blog does not respond by visiting your thread, do you react by spamming the entire blog with your links?

The PWZ lives with us, now and forever......

We, this, is PWZ......You're a small part of it .....

You always have been.....

You always will be.......

"...so pissed at the Obama croud for pushing their BOY on a pedistal, and yet he will not do anything different than BUSH has been doing for 7 years."

Closing the prison at Guantanamo is a good start.

The truth is always fearful Beachbuzz....

the more it's true, the more fear it creates....

#214 | Posted by r_zeitgeist at 2009-01-14 12:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

You're pathetic. Your blog fails, you crawl back here and claim the one you had to beg to post again on as your own.

Delusional.

"The truth is always fearful"

"The truth" can not experience fear, and so cannot be "fearful".

No wonder PWZ failed miserably.

The main problem with the PWZ is that Horace left it. I often wonder where he posts at these days.

Here, probably. Everyone else from that pathetic failure of a site that aimed to rival this one does.

Watch your mouth Jackass.

Was "Jackass" you or Beachbuzz or Rasta?

(I mostly don't care, as all of your names blended into one sad caricature years ago)

The sad but real truth is Boyd, you are a nobody....

Your only existence is because of my response.

Without me, you don't exist.

The sad but real truth is Boyd, you are a nobody....

Your only existence is because of my response.

Without me, you don't exist.

#225 | Posted by r_zeitgeist at 2009-01-14 12:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

Pffft! You have been listening to too much over-hyped adolescent crap. You are a perpetual teenager full of alternating currents of angst and inflated self-importance.

(And how old are you? Like thirty going on fat...?)

I'm ageless,

I am Zeitgeist.

I am your life.

You carry on, Rex, and shoulder the burden (waah waah waaah).

"I am Zeitgeist."

That's nothing.

I

am

Spartacus!

#172 | Posted by Beachbuzz at 2009-01-13 10:16 PM
"Trueblue,

So based on Robert Baer's publication of HIS opinion, you are swayed?"

He is not alone in his opinion and it is backed up by several diverse sources. You appear to have missed that while reading the article. BTW, "swayed" is not accurate; duly noted as newsworthy is closer to my thoughts.

"We will never know the entire facts behind 9/11 nor our government's efforts/methods to stop terrorism. Just like we didn't know the truth/facts or methods behind our efforts during WWII until it was 10-40 years beyond us."

Agreed, and my comments reflect that. So, you take issue with those who claim Mr. Clinton "did nothing", too?

"At some point you either give the government some credit for what they do, or like most libs fueled by the 2000 election rage and the 2004 election rage, hate the Bush administration and everything they do based on internet propaganda (most of which is fueled by foreign nations: think Hans, Deathspud and Jeff from Denmark).
You continue to look for cracks in the armor and arm-chair-quarterback every effort from the sidelines.
Until you are upped to a level 5 security clearance, I suggest you and your clan save the conspiracy theories for Oliver Stone and his ilk."

WTF are you talking about?
What "conspiracy theories"??
What "election rage"???
I can only guess you are confusing this thread with another thread and/or another person's comments. Meanwhile, if you think "internet propaganda" is the source of Mr. Bush's problems, you (frankly) are just not paying attention.

"Bottom line, either have the balls to admit you really don't know what the fuck you are talking about or join a militia as required by the constitution of the United States of America and overtake the Government. No links, look it up!
#172 | Posted by Beachbuzz at 2009-01-13 10:16 PM"

Bottom line: your blathering highlights the extent of what you don't know. Grow up.

#167 | Posted by MACV1972 at 2009-01-13 04:26 PM

I understand what you are saying MACV1972, but I think it is a vastly over-simplified explanation of the situation and, as such, can lead one to the wrong conclusions.

For example (by paragraph):
- In paragraph 1: if your statements were true, then why have terrorist attacks (outside of Iraq) remained essentially constant these last few years (see FreddyK's link above)?

- In paragraph 2: what can I say? This matter is hardly convenient no matter how obstreporous (good word!, even if incorrectly applied and misspelled) one is and is being brought up by MANY more than "lefties" (loony or otherwise).

- In paragraph 3: *sigh*, this is just a useless/baiting diatribe. OK, there's is NOTHING that supports your contentions that President Obama's administration will interact with the terrorists in the way you described. There is NOTHING that indicates "they" attacked us because they despise "our decadent western life style". Similarly, there is NOTHING that supports the idea that converting to Islam and Sharia Law will placate them.

Given the region's history (ancient and recent) of Iraq, it WOULD appear that the situation WOULD improve (especially in the long-term) if the US left Iraq and SOON!

What I find amazing is we, as a nation, are extremely affronted (and rightly so!) by any foreign invasion (e.g., the British in 1775 & 1812, Pearl Harbor in 1941, even 9/11 on a much smaller scale), but somehow we do not comprehend that the Iraqi are less than happy with our presence in their country. We might argue that our presence is for "their own good", but just imagine how we would feel/react (even IF it were for our own good) in a similar situation. Food for thought (as long as we are doing a little serious thinking).

#168 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2009-01-13 05:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

The post was intentional hyperbolism, TB. Just poking the liber...I mean progressives...here.

"#168 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2009-01-13 05:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

The post was intentional hyperbolism, TB. Just poking the liber...I mean progressives...here.
#235 | Posted by MACV1972 at 2009-01-14 06:13 AM"

Oops on my part, MACV1972. I missed "the hype".
Apologies for my longish rebuttal. Just call me "poke-able".