4,000 soldiers killed in 6 years, a trillion dollars wasted, and look what's bought us: NOTHING! We're back to square one, only this time, we are all alone. At least 6 years ago, we had the rest of World on our side.

OCU

4,000 soldiers killed in 6 years, a trillion dollars wasted, and look what's bought us: NOTHING! We're back to square one, only this time, we are all alone. At least 6 years ago, we had the rest of World on our side.

OCU

Posted by oldCADuser at 2007-07-11 06:47 PM | Reply


And the Right don't give a shit. It would be funny if it weren't so depressing.

Larry

6 years of war and the enemy is still running around like cockroaches. Wheres real leadership when we need it? Bush said they'll hear from us soon. Well, they're still listening.

Many posters here have long known that the best friend Al Qaeda and those who cleve to its message have is George W. Bush. Too bad we don't have somebody with Bin Laden's smarts -- in terms of understanding the Long Game -- on our side in the primary "leadership" role. Instead, we get the most mediocre president ever to face a serious situation in American history.

Report: AI Qaeda At Pre-9/11 Strength

This is a Lefty propaganda wet dream -- they can accuse Bush of being incompetant for allowing al-Quada to flourish while at the same time saying that al-quada really doesn't exist and this is just fear mongering on the part of the administration to keep us in Iraq.

And they'd be right, jackass.

"The document pays special heed to the terror group's safe haven in Pakistan"
Yup, the billion we gave Bush's buddy Mushareef and those F-16s sure have paid off.

Who decided to give them that stuff?
Oh yeah, the Deciderer-in-Chief, or as Bowa calls him, "My Hero".

You're a fucking retard, Bowa. Name anyone here at any time who said that Al Qaeda doesn't exist. Huh? What's that? Sounds of crickets? Right, 'cause no one ever did, but don't let that stop you from writing your tired old shit. The administration does fear monger, where have you been the last six years? Hiding under a duct-tape sealed down comforter made from genuine 9/11 recovered nylon? The truth must just be lefty propaganda. Okay, now go ahead and perform your usual cut-left and reply by telling me to chill out and not be so angry. It's not like anyone takes you seriously anymore or that you even try to come across as semi-rooted in reality.

""This is a Lefty propaganda wet dream ""

Yeah, cuz lefties love dying in sky scrapers because incompetent presidents don't read PDBs.

Bankrupt AND less safe. What can you expect with a NeoCon greedfucker and his puppet moron in charge.

Dude, "Bush is just another Hitler".

Guy, "Don't be ridiculous Dude, Hitler was a Good Speaker"!

If we continue our fight in Iraq much longer, AlQaeda will exceed their pre 9/11 strength.

4,000 soldiers killed in 6 years, a trillion dollars wasted, and look what's bought us: NOTHING!

And what have the terrorist accomplished in the U.S.A. in those 6 years? NOTHING.

Name anyone here at any time who said that Al Qaeda doesn't exist.

Oh please Eva, I was making a point as to the hypocrisy of the Lefties here, and there have been many in recent weeks , who have suggested that the Bush administration lies and calls every thug, gang, or group in Irag "al-quada" without any proof of a connection to it.

Okay, now go ahead and perform your usual cut-left and reply by telling me to chill out and not be so angry. It's not like anyone takes you seriously anymore or that you even try to come across as semi-rooted in reality.

LOL, when people stop responding to my posts, calling me names, expressing their unbridled anger at me, and refusing to debate me on point -- then I'll believe I am not taken seriously here.

Until then, Every vicious hateful name I'm called, every angry response to my posts, is proof that I am definitely taken very seriously on drudge.com. So seriously in fact that Lefties here fell the need to mobilize and attack me rather then debate me.

Yeah, cuz lefties love dying in sky scrapers because incompetent presidents don't read PDBs.

Danni, what does it feel like to believe in myths.

You know that there was no actionable material in that PDB.

I guess if you tell yourself the same lie over and over again -- eventually you believe it.

I guess if you tell yourself the same lie over and over again -- eventually you believe it.

Posted by Bowa at 2007-07-12 10:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

No, Bowa, what the "lefties" have maintained for a long time is that Al Qaeda didn't exist in Iraq -- in any effective numbers according to some -- prior to the U.S. invasion and occupation. That is hardly the same as saying they don't exist, period, which is what you wrote, or didn't mean to write, whatever Bowa-ian process you go through.

And people don't have "unbridled" anger at you, Bush, yes, but not you. To tell the truth, it would be extremely boring here with everyone preaching to the converted were it not for people like you who parachute in and drop a load of right-wing shit once in a while.

But please, drop the martyr routine with the Sara Berharht "Every vicious hateful name I'm called" drama. Puhleeeze, don't try to tell me any of that bothers you!

"You know that there was no actionable material in that PDB."

Because Condoleeza Rice said so? And even if there was no specific threat, does that mean it should have been completely ignored.

Would it, perhaps, have been worth Bush sending out orders to the FBI & CIA telling them to direct more attention and assets to that potential threat?

Would it, perhaps, have been worth Bush telling Cheney that it might be time to actually call a meeting of that anti-terrorism task force he was supposed to be heading up?

Would it, perhaps, have been worth Bush saying "I don't like the sound of this", I want to know where this might be headed?

But, if he even read it, he probably tossed it aside when Condi said "I can't possibly imagine terrorist would try anything like that here."

I was making a point as to the hypocrisy of the Lefties here


no your not making a point, you never make a point.

Bowa - your just a moron, plain and simple, you supported this president, you supported this war, then you flip flop and back away from your previous stances and sit there and tell everyone else how fvcked they are.

Its you, your the Fool. Its people like you who have ruined this country, your mentality is combative and absurd. You have no decency or rational. Just go away dumbass..

I can hear it already....
"No one could ever imagine that terrorists would turn airliners into missiles and fly them into buildings again."

"""You know that there was no actionable material in that PDB.""

No, it was an "historical" document.

Puhleeez!

I think Bowa is a paid shill. I refuse to believe anyone could be that incompetent on every single issue posted on this board.

I would imagine that had we actually pursued Al-Queda where they were instead of handing them a fertile breeding ground in Iraq the NIE would look a bit different.

These are the incontrovertible facts, Bowa, so pay attention. If this Administration was serious about the War on Terror they would have secured the borders here at home.

If this Administration was serious about the War on Terror they would have finished the job in Afghanistan and hunted down OBL and his generals no matter where they fled.

If this Administration was serious about the War on Terror they never would have invaded Iraq, a country that had NOTHING to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001.

If this Administration was serious about the war on Terror they would have secured the borders and munitions dumps when they invaded Iraq.

If this Administration was serious about the War on Terror they would have listened to the Generals and Military minds who laid out a successful strategy with regards to troop levels and post invasion control for the Iraq War.

This Administration hasn't been at war with terror, they've been actively promoting it in a desperate and unprecedented power grab.

This Administration has sold out the well being and the safety of the American people for power and profit.

You can't blame the current sad, sorry state of this Union on the left and maintain any sort of legitimacy. It isn't funny to watch you try anymore, Camille. It's just sad.

You apologists are just as culpable as Bush and his stable of Terrorist enablers.

Trees, you've laid out some pretty bold claims. I cannot wait to read Bowa et al's reasoned debunking of those grievous falsehoods.

Umm...Should I make coffee?

Report: AI Qaeda At Pre-9/11 Strength

This is a Lefty propaganda wet dream --

Posted by Bowa at 2007-07-11 08:14 PM

Yes Bowa because the fact that Al Queda has been allowed to regroup, rearm and resupply, all while staying the the friendly safe boundaries of Pakistan even while Bushole cancelled missions to take them out for fear of upsetting the Pakistani government should only be a lefty concern.

I did not realize that the only people who had their throats slit with boxcutters, were blown to bits by exploding jet fuel, burned to death in the towers and pentagon, jumped 110 stories to their deaths to escape the intense heat of the fires or were crushed to death under tons of concrete were only liberals.

Of course it is much more important to start a war to enrich corporate donors and friends in Iraq than actually finish the job that Bushling promised to do.

Keep spinning this as a left issue though instead of a national security issue. It is much more important to illegally wiretap American citizens than actually do the hard work or hunting down the leader of AQ.

Umm...Should I make coffee?

Posted by evashogouki at 2007-07-12 10:45 AM | Reply

Shit, you could bake a truckload of coffee cakes before the answer comes.

Don't forget---the republicans are better on safety for America and America. Don't forget---the republicans are better on safety for America and America. Don't forget---the republicans are better on safety for America and America. Don't forget---the republicans are better on safety for America and America. Don't forget---the republicans are better on safety for America and America. Don't forget---the republicans are better on safety for America and America.Don't forget---the republicans are better on safety for America and America.

If this Administration was serious about the War on Terror they would have finished the job in Afghanistan and hunted down OBL and his generals no matter where they fled.

i agree

tho since hunting down osama would and still would mean violating a country pakistan,,

how many lefties would agree to that?
i can think of any number who would pontificate about the wrongness of this action

i can already see the outrage of the lefties

bush bombed pakistan

and no mention of the terrorists camps destroyed

this is a strange world we live in,,,,

what i would like to see is the left plan to deal with al qaeda?

come on lefties state a plan...
i doubt they will...
be ready in their reply for blasts from the pasts the very thing righties are accused of when clinton is mentioned...even tho a clinton is running for pres,,,,,

"tho since hunting down osama would and still would mean violating a country pakistan... how many lefties would agree to that?"

At the time, as part of the operation against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, (you know, the REAL threat to America) I would have been all for it, if that's what it took to take out Bin Laden and finish of both of those organizations.

Now, since Bush had been coddling Musharraf it would be a whole lot more difficult. I still think we need to put a LOT more pressure on Pakistan to capture or at least expel these guys from their territory.

"tho since hunting down osama would and still would mean violating a country pakistan"

You're joking, right? Bush had no problem whatsoever violating Iraq.

And what have the terrorist accomplished in the U.S.A. in those 6 years? NOTHING.
Posted by wisgod at 2007-07-12 09:56 AM


YEAH!


Here we go again!

Bush isn't "personally" responsible for so many things (that haven't gone right) ---- but of course is solely responsible for this.
And, a ten fold increase in Global terrorism magically "makes us safer"!

Let's shed some light on recent comments by Santorum and other Fake Plastic Sons of Bitchs, hoping for another attack on America for political gains!


"About a month ago, Dennis Milligan, the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, sounded pretty excited about the prospect of domestic terrorism. Yesterday, Rick Santorum echoed a similar sentiment on Hugh Hewitt's radio show.
Santorum went on to clearly imply that terror attacks will occur inside America which will alter the body politic and lead to a reversal of the anti-war sentiment now dominating the country.
"Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public's going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we're seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public's going to have a very different view," said the former senator from Pennsylvania."

So are we to assume, since you attribute six years without an attack on our soil to Bush's "leadership" that if what Santorum and people like you are desperately wanting something like this to happen, (for votes) will Bush be held accountable for a less favorable result (another attack)?
I doubt it! Such is the reality of your tortured logic!

Cheka, Bush vowed to prosecute terrorists responsible for 9/11, and this included any countries (except, apparently, Saudi Arabia) that harbored them.

What 9/11 terrorists were in Iraq?

And what have the terrorist accomplished in the U.S.A. in those 6 years? NOTHING.


Exactly what they accomplished under a longer period of Clinton's leadership, only without us wasting all those lives and all that money.

Bush-boldly failing where no man has failed before.

And the point is? Which Al Qaeda? AQI? With this administration, I'm treating all intel just like politicians, if their lips move, they're lying.

tho since hunting down osama would and still would mean violating a country pakistan,,

how many lefties would agree to that?

i can already see the outrage of the lefties


Posted by cheka at 2007-07-12 11:26 AM | Reply |

Ahh, it is so easy to make a claim like this, but also so full of shit.

I'm pretty damn liberal. I remember Bush's Bullhorn speach about Al Qeada hearing from us. I was pumped and bloodthirsty. I wanted the US to kill every person involved. I wanted special forces, cia covert, government assassins, whatever to kill these people wherever. Don't FUCK with the U.S.

Do you remember when Clinton sent missles into Al Qeada terrorist camps? I do. It was the REPUBLICANS that were outraged, not us wimpy liberals.

It wasn't the democrats that let Al Queda off the hook. It was the Bush administration. It was the Bush administration that outsourced Tora Bora and turned its attention away from Al Qeada in Afganistan and Pakistan. It was Bush that got us into the Iraq quagmire and sent the message, go ahead, fuck with us...we're incompetent.

I still want Bush to use special forces, covert CIA, government assassins, whatever, to kill Al Qeada wherever they are...but apparently he isn't going to do it.

Pakistan has nukes. Careful who you bomb. Afghanistan and Iraq were completely unarmed.

"And what have the terrorist accomplished in the U.S.A. in those 6 years? NOTHING."

How long had it been (before 9/11) since Al Qaeda had attacked the US on our soil?

answer: 8 years

And straight from today's news we have the latest "Bushspeak" that will surely help us understand why black is white and up is down...

The president also said that ... it (Al Qaeda) has been hurt by his war on terrorism and is "weaker today than they would have been" otherwise.

Thanks George, I'll go ahead and put the plastic and duct tape back in the closet again. Phew, what a relief.

Incidentally, in another duh moment, Bush has announced that the war on terror will outlast his Presidency.

Assuming, of course, America does.

I'm pretty sure al queda regrowing under Bush's attacks has something to do with Clinton getting a blow job. Bowa or Cheka or BLT will be along shortly to explain it all to us.

In fairness, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany had returned to December 7 strength, militarity
in 1948

come on lefties state a plan...
i doubt they will...
be ready in their reply for blasts from the pasts the very thing righties are accused of when clinton is mentioned...even tho a clinton is running for pres,,,,,

The problem with you people is that you just assume you know what we stand for, you put words into out mouths, assign us positions that we've never held, refuse to talk to us or ask us what we stand for all because the search for the truth is too hard and too troubling for your beautiful minds.

Posted by TreesGoneWild at 2007-07-12 01:18 PM

I guess you can't come to grips all those from the Party you are proud to be part of that authorized Bush to attack Iraq.They were asked and responded with their YES vote. The truth is right in front of you. But since everyone knows your party is more afarid of the truth it is not shocking you can't bring yourself to blaming both side equally.

"I guess you can't come to grips all those from the Party you are proud to be part of that authorized Bush to attack Iraq"

I posted this on another thread, but it fits...

When did the Dems vote for undermanning and underplanning? When did they vote to guard the oil fields but not the ammo dumps or museums? When did they endorse destroying the societal infrastructure (de-baathification) along with the civil infrastructure?

As Bill Maher put it, if you give the "go-ahead" to a builder to redo your garage, and 4 years later it's in shambles, it's the builder's fault.

Can we get an "Amen" for Danforth!

(Although, being a Protestant, I fully understand the Pope will not sanction it)

As Bill Maher put it, if you give the "go-ahead" to a builder to redo your garage, and 4 years later it's in shambles, it's the builder's fault.

Posted by Danforth at 2007-07-12 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag

When did the Dems vote for undermanning and underplanning? When did they vote to guard the oil fields but not the ammo dumps or museums? When did they endorse destroying the societal infrastructure (de-baathification) along with the civil infrastructure?

Posted by Danforth at 2007-07-12 01:28 PM

Maybe you should present that to the Democratic leaders of the all the commitees who voted yes. Then ask them all why they didn't bother to read the entire report instead of putting their fucking political finger in the air. Had they all voted no maybe the vote outcome would be different. I would hope you don't criticize my Monday morning quarterbacking unless you are willing to criticize every fucking politician who have been doing the exact same thing and will continue to make excuses for their votes in 2003.

Crispee Critter-

In the House, six Republicans -- Ron Paul of Texas; Connie Morella of Maryland; Jim Leach of Iowa; Amo Houghton of New York; John Hostettler of Indiana; and John Duncan of Tennessee -- joined 126 Democrats in voting against the resolution.

Resolution sharply divides Democrats

The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.

Ahead of the vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced Thursday morning he would support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country "to speak with one voice at this critical moment."

Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored." However, he urged Bush to move "in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse."

Daschle had expressed reservations about a possible U.S. attack on Iraq, and he was not part of an agreement between the White House and other congressional leaders framing the resolution last week.

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, attempted Thursday to mount a filibuster against the resolution but was cut off on a 75 to 25 vote.

Byrd had argued the resolution amounted to a "blank check" for the White House.
Sen. Bob Graham of Florida was one of 21 Senate Democrats voting against the resolution.
Sen. Bob Graham of Florida was one of 21 Senate Democrats voting against the resolution.

"This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again," Byrd said. "Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution."

But Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said the United States needs to move before Saddam can develop a more advanced arsenal.

"Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war on his terms, at a time of his choosing, in pursuit of ambitions that will only grow as his power to achieve them grows," McCain said.

Do you remember any of the TRUTH are you so convinced of Bushes LIES you can't even see anymore?

IT WAS ALL BASED ON A LIE

There were NO WMD REMEMBER?????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????? ???????????

TREES

There's no point in arguing with ignorant righties.

There's something in the insulation of most 'manufactured homes' that scrambles their brains - and then when you add overconsumption of beer and Clear Channel right wing radio buffoons to the mix.......

IT WAS ALL BASED ON A LIE


There were NO WMD REMEMBER?????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????? ???????????

Posted by donnerboy at 2007-07-12 01:36 PM |

So Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Rockefeller, etc. etc. etc. all lied? Or was it just GWB? Because I will be happy to provide their EXACT words.

Democrats tried to stop this.

Very few Republicans spoke up.

"The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of any military action against Iraq and submit, at least every 60 days, a report to Congress on the military campaign.

part one is worth repeating(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,

So remind me again when our NATIONAL SECURITY was threatened by IRAQ?

Oh yeah that came AFTER we attacked...

"Then ask them all why they didn't bother to read the entire report"

Remind us...where in the report did it say the architects of the war were going to be totally incompetent and ignore the experts?

TREES

There's no point in arguing with ignorant righties

Posted by AllAmerican at 2007-07-12 01:36 PM

Anymore than you can argue with the hypocrites on the left who ALL live in glass houses and somehow can justify throwing rocks. You know " My pardons were different"

I repeat there were NO WMD.

IT was all based on a lie designed by the Administration to pave the way for attacking Iraq.

Our national security was never in danger from IRAQ.

Bush is a traitor.

Bush is a traitor because NOW our National Security IS threaten by IRAQ.

He should be impeached pure and simple.

threatened

Crispee,

I don't live in a glass house. Most of us don't live in glass houses. Most of us aren't ignorant kool-aid drinking chickenhawk pussies.

We'll throw all the goddamn stones we please so you'd best be learning how to duck my little chickadee.

Again, you've proved my initial point very well. There is no need to continue reinforcing the argument but if you must, please do it is adding to our general amusement.

"My pardons were different"

They were. But show me where Clinton pardoned someone accused of covering up crimes in his own administration and I'll agree with you.

IT was all based on a lie designed by the Administration to pave the way for attacking Iraq.
Posted by donnerboy

Well, then Hillary Rodham has no business running for President if she is that damn gullible

" My pardons were different"

hmmm, Libby wasn't pardoned, but don't let lack of facts slow you down in your incoherent babble.

furthermore, Clinton did not repreieve anyone from his own whitehouse staff, in order to obstruct justice investigations into crimes that he likely committed.

Bush did, and well if you can't see a difference there, if you want to crawl up Bushes ass and huff then you are as stupid as you appear.

We'll throw all the goddamn stones we please so you'd best be learning how to duck my little chickadee

Posted by TreesGoneWild at 2007-07-12 01:48 PM

Tree,
You of all people live in a glass house. You also have the company of Danni, All American, Buffalo Bob... As for your stone throwing... If you all throw like Kerry throws a baseball, I won't have to duck. I may have to jump since the throws will be short and at my feet.

They were. But show me where Clinton pardoned someone accused of covering up crimes in his own administration and I'll agree with you.

Posted by Danforth at 2007-07-12 01:49 PM

You tell me which was worse? Commuting a 30 month sentence or pardoning a fucking child molestor? Let's see how honest you can be.

"Cheka, realistically you cannot possibly be this stupid."

It has been my observation that the individual in question has consistently demonstrated, indeed, that he most certainly is.

Oh, Mr. Crisp...in regards to that little black and white world of yours, how do you account for those of us who dress in shades of gray? Being a liberal gives me the political luxury of disagreeing wholeheartedly with those I'm predisposed to voting for. Those of your stripe, alas, cannot make that statement for fear (insert snarky joke here).

Well, then Hillary Rodham has no business running for President if she is that damn gullible

Posted by wisgod

Oh Dogpiss I know you really want to try and beat up on a woman in the campaign, you probably wet your shorts at night thinking of a Guido / Hillary race.

Clue: most dems dont really like Hillary either.

""Well, then Hillary Rodham has no business running for President if she is that damn gullible""

Where was she supposed to get more accurate information???
All of y'all seem to forget that the resulution authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq also required him to come back to Congress before he did it which he did not do. It also ignores the fact that Saddam had agreed to allow the weapons inspectors back in before we invaded and then they had to leave so that we could attack.
When wars go so wrong I guess it isn't surprising that those who supported it will not try to rewrite history.
Gonna need a lot of White Out.

Tree,
You of all people live in a glass house. You also have the company of Danni, All American, Buffalo Bob... As for your stone throwing... If you all throw like Kerry throws a baseball, I won't have to duck. I may have to jump since the throws will be short and at my feet.

"You tell me which was worse? Commuting a 30 month sentence or pardoning a fucking child molestor? Let's see how honest you can be."

Which was worse? Easy: suggesting to people outing a CIA operative during wartime is okay as partisan political payback, to the tune of disrupting the search for WMD in Iran. That has ramifications far and wide, and effects many, many more people than any child-molester.

So which do you think was worse? Pardoning a child molester, or putting our undercover operatives and their informants at risk around the world during wartime? Let's see how honest you can be.

" My pardons were different"

hmmm, Libby wasn't pardoned, but don't let lack of facts slow you down in your incoherent babble.

Bush did, and well if you can't see a difference there, if you want to crawl up Bushes ass and huff then you are as stupid as you appear.

Posted by Repugnant at 2007-07-12 01:54 PM

Yeah I guess I want to be as smart as someone who can't understand a simple post and can't see the hypocrisy. But don't let the facts corrupt your skewed brain. Being a Dem is the universal excuse when ignorance is involved.

Oh Repgtard, she doesn't bother me a bit. She represents all the great things your party stands for.

It really is fun watching these moron right wingers get trounced for their stupidity.

If you don't...well I guess you don't really have a problem with being an intellectually stunted, party over country, traitor worshiping shill, do you?

Posted by TreesGoneWild at 2007-07-12 02:00 PM

You support Democrats. Unless of course you don't think they can be dishonest and underhanded? Again glass houses Trees.

Being a Dem is the universal excuse when ignorance is involved.

Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-07-12 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

It really is fun watching these moron right wingers get trounced for their stupidity.

Posted by Repugnant

For a guy who couldn't win a debate with a comatose 2 year old, that is really funny.

Whats my party Dogpiss?

Who have I voted for since 92?

Im an Independent, I think both parties are full of corruption, I just see more blatent stupidity coming from people like you who eat Bushes dingleberries.

For a guy who couldn't win a debate with a comatose 2 year old, that is really funny.

Im glad you agree that you suck at debating.

You support Democrats. Unless of course you don't think they can be dishonest and underhanded? Again glass houses Trees.

Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-07-12 02:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Which was worse? Easy: suggesting to people outing a CIA operative during wartime is okay as partisan political payback, to the tune of disrupting the search for WMD in Iran.

First of all Libby didn't out anyone. Right? Nor was he charged for outing anyone.(Fact) Second nobody was charged for outing a CIA operative. Third I have yet to hear how this somehow disrupted any search since no inspectors are in Iran. Although you don't need anyone to confirm since they fucking came out and bragged about it.

So which do you think was worse? Pardoning a child molester, or putting our undercover operatives and their informants at risk around the world during wartime? Let's see how honest you can be.

Why would someone risk exposing their so called undercover status and allow their husband to write a fucking Op-ed in the NY Times?

First of all Libby didn't out anyone. Right?

OMG is that an actual fact. Wow.. heres another fact. Libby was charged with Perjury. Well we have our nightly news covered, Brilliant.

Now the more important point of, why did Libby lie? Was he obstructing justice that could implicate Dick Cheney or Dictator Bush?
Well since Bush is above the law and thinks he can write his own laws then it will be up to congress to tear the administration down.

Its a pity that George Bush has essentialy destroyed the legitimacy of the Presidency.

So stand there and supprt the destruction of our operational government and the intelligent poeple who disagree with you will try and fix it..

"Why would someone risk exposing their so called undercover status and allow their husband to write a fucking Op-ed in the NY Times?"

You're absolutely right. Joe Wilson should have known that the Bush administration was sleazy enough to go after his wife because he publicly said something they didn't like.

And that woman who wore a short skirt when she went out one night. Well she should have expected to get raped, right?

"First of all Libby didn't out anyone. Right? "

Wrong. Bush admitted as much today.

"Second nobody was charged for outing a CIA operative."

That's because the statute was written so narrowly the prosecutor must prove it was the intent of the leaker to out the covert agent.

"Third I have yet to hear how this somehow disrupted any search since no inspectors are in Iran."

Bwahahaha...like the CIA is going to come out and tell us exactly who this put in danger. What...it's not enough the CIA admitted it hampered them?

"Why would someone risk exposing their so called undercover status and allow their husband to write a fucking Op-ed in the NY Times?"

NOCs are encourage to lead as "normal" a life as they can. The only "risk" Plame faced was from a WH eager to silence any and all critics. And Wilson was responding to what he knew were lies from the administration regarding yellowcake, trumped-up bullshit that has since been exposed.

You still haven't answered my question.

You still haven't answered my question.

Posted by Danforth at 2007-07-12 02:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

""Why would someone risk exposing their so called undercover status and allow their husband to write a fucking Op-ed in the NY Times?""

Better question that never seems to occur to you guys is why would the president include accusations in his State of the Union Address that he knew were untrue, that the CIA had told him were not true???
You worry about why someone would call the lie to our attention instead of why the lie was told in the first place. It should also occur to you that when Joe Wilson wrote his piece he was trying to inform the public that one of the major reasons for this disastrous invasion was a lie. I think that information was important enough for him to risk writing his Op Ed and still believe that the president and his cronies would not commit treason and out a covert CIA agent.

"Third I have yet to hear how this somehow disrupted any search since no inspectors are in Iran."

Raw Story: Three intelligence officials, who spoke under condition of anonymity, said that...

While Director of Central Intelligence Porter Goss has not submitted a formal damage assessment to Congressional oversight committees, the CIA's Directorate of Operations did conduct a serious and aggressive investigation.

According to those sources:

the damage assessment . . . called a "counter intelligence assessment to agency operations" was conducted on the orders of the CIA's then-Deputy Director of the Directorate of Operations, James Pavitt. . . . [and showed] "significant damage to operational equities."

The story goes on to say that while Plame was undercover she was involved in an operation identifying and tracking weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran, suggesting that her outing "significantly hampered the CIA's ability to monitor nuclear proliferation." Her sources also stated that the outing of Plame also compromised the identity of other covert operatives who had been working, like Plame, under non-official cover status. These anonymous officials said that in their judgement, the CIA's work on WMDs has been set back "ten years" as a result of the compromise.

MSNBC correspondent David Shuster reported on Hardball later, on May 1, 2006, that MSNBC had learned "new information" about the potential consequences of the leaks:

Intelligence sources say Valerie Wilson was part of an operation three years ago tracking the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran. And the sources allege that when Mrs. Wilson's cover was blown, the Administration's ability to track Iran's nuclear ambitions was damaged as well. The White House considers Iran to be one of America's biggest threats

Of course, no one outside of the Agency knows EXACTLY how much damage was done, but there was certainly some.

But he was wrong...they would commit treason. And you and your rightie friends seem to want to give them a pass on it. Sad.

don't know how you survive. What a miserable little person you are. I really do pity you.

Posted by TreesGoneWild at 2007-07-12 02:10 PM |

More glass houses Trees. How is it your ego can be so inflated it justifies you pitying someone much less calling them names you know nothing about? Do you really think you are all that?

"Someone should do a National Geographic special on the habits of the Rightwing Shill"

Maybe they could start with the mating habits of Senator Vitter.

"Maybe they could start with the mating habits of Senator Vitter."

That might have to be a mini-series rather than a special.

You still haven't answered my question.

Posted by Danforth at 2007-07-12 02:24 PM

Which question is that Danforth?

"So which do you think was worse? Pardoning a child molester, or putting our undercover operatives and their informants at risk around the world during wartime? Let's see how honest you can be."

"Third I have yet to hear how this somehow disrupted any search since no inspectors are in Iran"

Now that you've been enlightened, what say ye?

It is interesting and disturbing that Valerie Plame has been prevented from publishing her book though others from the CIA have published theirs. It appears to many that she is being punished.

Egads, I can hear the disconnect from here. It's like listening to a crane pull up a big stump, the roots snapping and popping from the strain of trying to hold on to premises that will no longer support them.

Here's a puzzler for Mr. Crackle: 4.8.15.16.25.42

Ok...I've trolled enough for one day. Time to put on the suit of lights and head to the airport for my 2:00 meet'n'greet.

Trees,
I went back a full page and have yet to see anything where you treat a single democrat as you claim you would. in case you want to put your foot in your mouth and say you don't insult people as well, look here before you do:

You are representative of the problem with America. Willful ignorance, lock step party over country and a lemming-esque mentality that boggles the mind

You apologists are just as culpable as Bush and his stable of Terrorist enablers

? Or were your computer privilages at the home suspended because you kept frothing on the Keyboard?

The sheer idiocy of some people never ceases to amaze me.

Or are you just naturally apeshit crazy and don't need no stinkin decoder ring?

Being an apathetic, incurious lemming is a much better way to go through life. Thanks for setting all of us straight, Bowa

Do you like beef jerky and can you lick your own ass?

More glass houses Trees. How is it your ego can be so inflated it justifies you pitying someone much less calling them names you know nothing about? Do you really think you are all that?

Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-07-12 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So which do you think was worse? Pardoning a child molester, or putting our undercover operatives and their informants at risk around the world during wartime? Let's see how honest you can be."

Posted by Danforth at 2007-07-12 02:45 PM


If that were an accurate description I would have to agree with you. But you are stretching it quite a bit blaming Scooter Libby and applying that assumption.

"Third I have yet to hear how this somehow disrupted any search since no inspectors are in Iran"

Now that you've been enlightened, what say ye?

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2007-07-12 02:49 PM

I would say the CIA fucked up by allowing the husband of an active operative investigate something as important as the Niger yellow cake claim. instead of someone else. I would also say the CIA fucked up by allowing the Op-ed piece to be published.

I went back a full page and have yet to see anything where you treat a single democrat as you claim you would. Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-07-12 02:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Where the left dug in their heels (those of us that weren't pussies serving in congress) is when Bush shifted the focus to Iraq.Posted by TreesGoneWild at 2007-07-12 01:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Common sense here, love, anyone can be dishonest and underhanded. It's a gimme. Shitty people and politicians aren't limited to one party.Posted by TreesGoneWild at 2007-07-12 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag

Thanks for setting all of us straight, Bowa

Do you like beef jerky and can you lick your own ass?

Posted by crispee_oc

Wow didn't know you and Bowa licked ass together. Are you guys like a couple? Do your parents apporve of this?

Do have an actual point Crispee?

Can anyone describe Bush as anything other than an incompetent Commander-in-Chief? Okay, you can insert adjectives or adverbs to that, but at the core of it, he's a total failure.

he's a total failure.

Posted by northguy3 at 2007-07-12 03:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've stated many times that I disagree with Democrats on certain subjects. I've called out Dems and Liberals on a number of occassions.

You really need to start laughing at yourself DARLING. Because HONEY those are the most pitiful examples. Hell they don't even fit the bill SWEETHEART. But keep thinking you are a balanced fairminded person BABYCAKES.

Wow didn't know you and Bowa licked ass together. Are you guys like a couple? Do your parents apporve of this?

Do have an actual point Crispee?

Posted by Repugnant at 2007-07-12 03:06 PM

Another fucking Einstein. This coming from the clown using a two year old as his way of debating? Maybe some adult can walk you through step by step.

Crispee,

Darling, you are truly pathetic.

You can't prove your assertions, I've offered examples from THIS thread, love. I've factually debunked every one of your allegations against me. You can't handle that and now you're crying about it. Too special, dear.

You just go right on ahead making an ass out of yourself, it is after all, what you do best, punkin.

"You are representative of the problem with America. Willful ignorance, lock step party over country and a lemming-esque mentality that boggles the mind. Posted by Crispee OC"

OK, it took me a while to catch my breath from laughing at you over that one.

"I would say the CIA fucked up by allowing the husband of an active operative investigate something as important as the Niger yellow cake claim. instead of someone else. I would also say the CIA fucked up by allowing the Op-ed piece to be published."

Or, you could say "It was wrong and possibly illegal for the Bush Administration to use a man's wife to exact revenge, and thereby out a covert CIA agent. I can also see that doing that might have damaged our country's intelligence operations and tracking of trafficking in WMD. As an American I have a duty to condemn such actions, even if by members of my own party."

Ah geez, I crack myself up sometimes.

Maybe some adult can walk you through step by step.

Enlighten me Douchbag

Give me some facts about how Al - Qauda is in demise, tell me how terrorism has not grown under G-dubs tenure..

Lets take some baby steps to discuss facts ..

Crispee,

Darling, you are truly pathetic.

You can't prove your assertions, I've offered examples from THIS thread, love

Sweetheart, darling, honey, dumpling what fool wrote they call out many on the left? Calls those on the right every name in the book? Heres a hint it was you. Please show one post where you call out a Liberal. One name one person. Senator_________ Congressman_______ Just one expample. Even though you claim many...

Enlighten me Douchbag
Posted by Repugnant

I'll start. It's spelled Douchebag, Douchebag.

you should know best Dogpiss, you use one everyday

You are representative of the problem with America. Willful ignorance, lock step party over country and a lemming-esque mentality that boggles the mind. Posted by Crispee OC"

OK, it took me a while to catch my breath from laughing at you over that one.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2007-07-12 03:17 PM

Are you laughing at your own stupidity San? Or are you fucking to stupid to notice I didn't post that? How can you even show yourself here the rest of the day with that blatant fuck up?

I guess when you cant discuss policy with any relevancy you can sit and spell check -

Boring

Enlighten me Douchbag
Posted by Repugnant

I'll start. It's spelled Douchebag, Douchebag.

Posted by wisgod at 2007-07-12 03:22 PM

Wisgod,
This fucking idiot is jumping in for the attention. He doesn't even fucking know who posted what or who was responding to what. Leave the fucking idiot be. He seems to have company here today.

Oh just because Trees ripped you apart in this thread doesnt mean you need to cling to dogpisses leash does it Crispee

Oh just because Trees ripped you apart in this thread doesnt mean you need to cling to dogpisses leash does it Crispee

Posted by Repugnant at 2007-07-12 03:28 PM |

Yoeah you got me there dumb ass. Of course you still don't have the fucking brains to see your cut and past or your lame responses had nothing to do with you. Yet keep digging until you find something. Or you could take the time and follow what was said to who.

I guess Trees is still looking for anything to back up her post.

San,
Are you up to speed?

Crispee the only point I can see you fail to try and make was that The democrats in congress were somehow responsible for the war because they voted for it based on info supplied by the FBI that was cherrypicked and reconstitued for consumtion that the then REPUBLICAN congresss could swallow.

But typically your point was way off base, trees pointed it out and you got you ass handed to you,

its not that hard to grasp, so dont try to overcomplicate it all.

Sweetheart, darling, honey, dumpling what fool wrote they call out many on the left?
Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-07-12 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

I guess Trees is still looking for anything to back up her post.

Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-07-12 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

He's still waiting for the application in the mail.

I've stated many times that I disagree with Democrats on certain subjects. I've called out Dems and Liberals on a number of occassions.

Posted by TreesGoneWild at 2007-07-12 03:38 PM

You have yet to provide one Democrat example much less many. Go back a week, month, year it is all there. Back up your claim. It seems it would be very easy to shut me up on this subject.

The simple fact is that a Republican President and a Republican Congress lead us into this war.

To try and say equal blame belongs to Democrats who were a minority in congress is not balanced or fair. There were far less democrats who voted for the war and many have said they regretted the vote since because it was based on lies and manipulations from the Bush administration.

Not many Republicans have stood up in the face of reality and said that there vote was a mistake based on lies.

So can you summarize your counterpoint?

"How can you even show yourself here the rest of the day with that blatant fuck up?

Posted by crispee_oc"

It will be easy crisp. I will simply admit that I was wrong. I made a mistake and you have my apology for that.

I know that is a foreign concept for you and you're probably a little confused about how to react, other than with more profanity, I imagine.

It will be easy crisp. I will simply admit that I was wrong. I made a mistake and you have my apology for that.

I know that is a foreign concept for you and you're probably a little confused about how to react, other than with more profanity, I imagine.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2007-07-12 03:44 PM |

Not foreign at all San. I have had to aplologize to you and many others when I fuck up. The profanity was uncalled for and your attempt to make me the butt end of your insult was also.

guess Trees is still looking for anything to back up her post.

Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-07-12 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:


DO YOU READ?

Can you not go 30 seconds without looking like a total fucking moron?

Getting ready for work, leaving for work soon be back after 4:30pm.

Jesus it's like talking to fucking mentally disabled mound of horse manure.

Off to work now...do I need to spell slower for you?

Posted by TreesGoneWild at 2007-07-12 03:40 PM |

When you get back from work. I went as far back as the Drudge posts would go and there is still nothing. Maybe you can Google and find something. Or maybe you are a proven liar.

poor crispee, being exposed like for the butt he is, Im still waiting for you to summarize your point of this thread, do you have one?

poor crispee, being exposed like for the butt he is

Posted by Repugnant at 2007-07-12 03:56 PM

Maybe when you learn to write. Or at least know who is posting what to who. To quote Larry Mohr.. You are as signifigant as a pimple on a gnats ass!

Ahh, this just proves you have no valid point whatsoever Crispee.

Thats OK I understand why you are backing out with your tail between your legs.

There is no defense for your assertions.

Its not rocket science to see who is posting to who, I did not cross reference your post with anyone else, so unless you can explain yourself, your just a coward, afraid of a verbal ass kicking Crispee.

"But you are stretching it quite a bit blaming Scooter Libby"

Okay...I'll amend it to include the entire White House: Bush admitted as much today.

"You know that there was no actionable material in that PDB."

Thats a laughable comment given all the Clinton did nothing during his term deflections.

I've been telling you losers for months... don't feed the trolls.

Although Eva makes a good point about this place needing "enterainment". I just wish that entertainment was in the form of debating those with a valid opposing viewpoint, as opposed to batshit insane and stupid. Oorah is about the only guy on here that is at least original and thoughtful when posting opposing viewpoints. But even he falls off the wagon and starts posting "liberal scum" horseshit. Imagine that... a military guy not knowing the basic tenets of divide and conquer...

"But since everyone knows your party is more afarid of the truth it is not shocking you can't bring yourself to blaming both side equally. - Crispee

First off everybody doesnt know who is more afraid of truth. thats just a stupid statement that you can never back up. so if you assert things that are abstract and unprovable and try to push them off as facts then you accomplished, well nothing.

To insist that Democrats take as much responsibility as the President and majority Republican congress for getting the US into the Iraq war is just evidence of your realization that what you once stood for and defended is inexcuseable, so now your just looking to spread the blame.

That in itself is cowardly and shameless. If you held any true concept of justice you would acknowledge that this war was executed by NEOcons that had been planning it as an oil grab for years before 9/11 and just used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to fearmonger Congress and the American public into a war that did more harm to our country than any good.

Who just voted to get our troops out of Iraq and begin to mend this catastrophe? Overwhelmingly a Democratic congress. Who voted to stay the course in Iraq? Overwhelmingly Republican congressman..

Get with reality.

The problem with you people is that you just assume you know what we stand for, you put words into out mouths, assign us positions that we've never held, refuse to talk to us or ask us what we stand for all because the search for the truth is too hard and too troubling for your beautiful minds.

Posted by TreesGoneWild at 2007-07-12 01:18 PM

Sounds like most Politically minded Republicans AND Democrats I know.

Republicans: Democrats are nothing more then treehugging hippies with tons of great ideas, none of which are grounded in any form of reality. They want to protect the world, they want to stop the wars, and my god they MUST SAVE THE WHALES, they just sort of assume the money to do all this will come from somewhere.......Like Happy Fairy Land.


Democrats: Republicans are a bunch of Cold-Hearted hypocrits, They're more then willing to preach personal and social responsibility, but really aren't all that interested in doing either. It's all about getting as much as you can for as long as you can, and a little "truth" should never get in the way of that.

Those of us in the middle : Screw it, its already gone to hell....
I wonder if tonight on House it turns out to be Lupus.....

Crispee,

Obviously you lack the reading comprehension to understand words that have more than two syllables or six letters.

So you call me a liar.

Whatever helps you sleep snugger in your insulated little cocoon.

I've trounced you easily in this thread, honey. Don't play if you can't keep up, darlin.

Toodles.

I've trounced you easily in this thread, honey. Don't play if you can't keep up, darlin.

Toodles.

Posted by TreesGoneWild at 2007-07-12 05:26 PM

So in other words I am at fault because you posted something you can't back up? In other words another Dems blaming a Repub for their shortfalls? Why don't you simply provide an example condemning a Democrat as you posted you have done many times? Until then in my eyes you are a liar. Shut me up by backing what you post. Very, very easy to do.

Crispee

Seriously, I've backed it up twice now. This is also not the only place I post or blog.

In 12 days I'm devoting a full hour on my show to whupping Dems upside the head.

I've explained positions, and yes on this blog I have come out against not only liberal posters when I think they are grossly out of line but also, democrats in general on a number of occassions. I summarized for you what I disagree with dems about, but apparently you just don't get it.

It is not a daily, or weekly occurance, but I've been posting here for 7 months and I've done my share of griping about certain liberal issues.

What you FAIL to grasp is that I don't engage in the blind hatred based shit spewing that you and your ilk do, quite honestly I don't need to.

I don't give anyone a pass, and you are the one who insuinated I do, so it was up to you to prove that I did and you FAILED.

I don't give a rats ass if you think I am a liar, I've proven you a party over country, traitor loving stooge. Why do I care what you think beyond your ability to keep me occupied at what is admittedly a very low key and boring job?

You amuse me, I enjoy calling your traitor loving, terrorist enabling ideology for what it is and then watching you get all hissy and girly because I called you out.

Keep going, baby doll. Like I said, this is much fun for me.

Boy, you really didn't look hard at my blog did you?

It's only hypocritical if the dems who are outraged by this, weren't also outraged by that.

I gotta shocker for you bud, I was appalled when Clinton did his flurry of pardons at the end of his term. I was appalled at a lot of things Clinton did.

At that point I was so disgusted with both the Dems and Repubs I seriously considered taking a job offer Down Under (read into that what ever you like).

What you and others fail to recognize is that many of us were frustrated with the shennanigans of the Clinton administration and the shennagins of congress then too, but they aren't around anymore to fuck up the country. So, those of us who choose to live in the present, are more concerned with what the current asshole in chief is doing. Posted by TreesGoneWild at 2007-07-03 12:49 PM

As for pay increases Republicans give themselves, have you been equally kind and understanding? Or are you being partisan?


You must have me mistaken for someone else. I'm not overly kind and understanding about anything I don't like. I don't like this pay raise, but I don't expect you to get that since you view the world with NeoCon blinders.

In fact, I've been bashing dems pretty regularly today.

You do not read what is written.
...
Guess what, Vernon. I didn't like it when the republicans did it and I don't like it when the Democrats do it. Posted by TreesGoneWild at 2007-06-30 02:38 AM

This "Liberal" is staunchly against the fairness doctrine for the following reasons:

1.) People should be responsible for thinking for themselves. Anyone who relies solely on Talk Radio, Fox News or the MSM for their opinions deserve what they get.

2.) Who decides what "equal time" is? The Government does. And to be honest, I don't much trust the Government to choose which socks to wear in the morning let alone what constitutes fair programming.

It would be nice if there was a little less blind hatred of liberals and a little more making nice with reality.

Posted by TreesGoneWild at 2007-06-30 01:24 AM

The Democrats could have taken a stand, they could have promoted their agenda with more force than they did. No one held a gun to their heads when the Iraq vote came up and told them they had to vote yes?

No one forces an abused woman to stay with the abuser.

So, yes, Democrats do bear responsibility for their own actions and their own votes.

Posted by TreesGoneWild at 2007-06-29 09:43 PM |

Moder8,

I disagree. I will lay the lions share of this right at the feet of the Neo-Cons for sure, but they are not solely to blame for the current state of affairs.

The majority of the Dems rolled over and let the Repubs have what they wanted. How many Dems voted to authorize the war? How many Dems have gone along with other disasterous bills during the GOP leadership? And what are they doing right now to fix things?

The Dems aren't perfect nor are they without fault but I do agree that the GOP bears the most responsibility for where we currently find ourselves as a nation. I just wish the Dems were more serious about cleaning up some of the mess.

I am also seriously pissed about the pay raise. Seriously.

Posted by TreesGoneWild at 2007-06-29 09:30 PM |

President Pelosi?

As liberal as I am, that idea makes me queasy.
Posted by TreesGoneWild at 2007-06-29 12:53 AM

Our invasion of Iraq tubrocharged the Islamic Radical movement. The wannabes are signing up in droves. Al Qaeda has become the franchise of choice for Arab terrorism aimed at the West, and signing up affiliates faster than a Mary Kay rep.

Bin Laden's words about America are ringing true to Arabs all over the ME.

The only way we can ever hope to have relations with the larger Arab world standing on the sidelines is to get out of the Middle East and let things cool down while moderate Arab leaders work together to stamp out Islamic radicalism - as they wanted to do and help us do in the days following 9/11.

Until we pissed everyone off over there by invading Iraq. Afghanistan was a noble war in everyone's eyes.

Intel? You mean the same Intel that brought up the WMD story?

Didn't Intel invent the microprocessor?

Hmmm Democrats in charge of congress, Al Qaeda stronger?

Could there be a correlations here?

I wonder if Kennedy is working secretly behind the scenes to surrender to them?

Yes, yes. That's exactly what's happening.

Where do you come up with such genius?

I don't see how you can call the "War on Terror" anything but a failure if we're right back where we started.

Only now the enemy gains more prestige among potential recruits.

I don't see how you can call the "War on Terror" anything but a failure if we're right back where we started.

Only now the enemy gains more prestige among potential recruits.

Since last July:

Over 20,000 Iraqi civilians killed

Over 1100 American military killed

And that's just going back 2 weeks Crispee, so obviously you lied about your checking my posts.




Posted by TreesGoneWild at 2007-07-12 06:49 PM | R

Trees,
With great humility I admit I was wrong claiming you have not criticized Dems. For whatever it is worth I did go back as far as Drudge kept. So if it was there then it was sloppy research not a lie. I doubt I will ever be on the same page when it comes to politics and still feel you can be way over the top and just as vicious and partisan as anyone here.. Never the less I was proven wrong and had to place the size 13 foot in my mouth. Once again.

"Hmmm Democrats in charge of congress, Al Qaeda stronger? Could there be a correlations here?"

Obiously not.

What's "a correlations," anyway?

If you want to see some TURBOCHARGED TERRORIST watch what will happen if we cut, and run. Osama was emboldened when the first Bush pulled out of Iraq the first time. Pulling out will signal defeat to the terrorist, and make them stronger. Listen to the terrorist in there own words, and you'll find that this is true. They think that we are spineless, and don't have the stomach to hang in there. If we leave it will be much worse for them, and more dangerous for us, because even more extremist will make a home right there in Iraq.

"Hmmm Democrats in charge of congress, Al Qaeda stronger?


Posted by YouKnewWho"

Al Qaeda is stronger because Al Qaeda has been given a new training ground, post-Afghanistan. Afghanistan used to be the training ground, right? Do you remember all those film clips that we saw before we went into Afghanistan? Terrorists playing on monkey bars, running through tires like fourth string NFL players, jumping over wooden barriers, driving beaten-up cars and motorcycles and shooting around indiscriminately and of course, who can forget bin Laden playing with a walkie-talkie?

But that phase of the war against terror - if you want to call it a war against terror and not what it really is, which is a war against terrorists of the Arab variety - came and went pretty quickly, didn't it? Now were into a new phase of the war. This is the weapons of mass destruction hunt. I certainly thought they would be found by now, my mistake. Hopefully the Intel will come through for us in that regard and those WMD will be found and George W. Bush will be vindicated once and for all. The cherry on top would be a dead bin Laden.

Unless and until these things happen, the Democrats have fuck-all to do with Iraq now being a much more substantial training ground for terrorists than Afghanistan probably ever was.

Trying to make excuses about who is responsible for Iraq now being a huge terrorist training ground only goes to show that your thick skull finally contains at least one nugget of truth, and that it is that this war has done nothing but make things much, much worse. Let me give you a hint numbskull, the president is still George W. Bush. Isn't it all supposed to start with him?

Trees,
With great humility I admit I was wrong claiming you have not criticized Dems. For whatever it is worth I did go back as far as Drudge kept. So if it was there then it was sloppy research not a lie. I doubt I will ever be on the same page when it comes to politics and still feel you can be way over the top and just as vicious and partisan as anyone here.. Never the less I was proven wrong and had to place the size 13 foot in my mouth. Once again.

Posted by crispee_oc at 2007-07-13 12:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

P.S. It's all good.

No, things really don't start with Him. The problem starts with the terrorist who really don't have any love for you, or Bush. Bush doesn't do everything right, but he didn't start terrorism the same way that Clinton, or anybody else didn't start terrorism. Terrorist are the problem and we do have to do SOMETHING about it or it will get worse. They aren't just going to magically stop. So everyone can gripe, and moan about how awful our President is, but the fact is that he is not the true enemy, terrorist are.