Bin Laden Directing Iraq?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]lixy wrote:

You have been lied to by your leader. The cost of that was is lives of thousands Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. A country is in ruin because of that. And you still give the guy the benefit of the doubt? I think the Bush administration is pleased with what it has accomplished (wrecking a country and creating a breeding ground for terrorists( for two reasons: They get to choose what corporation is getting juicy contracts and they managed to destabilize the region even further, so that they can keep their troops there forever. All the critics think he’s just an idiot. I believe that he’s an evil genius who don’t give a damn about your security, is only looking out for his interests and has everybody fooled.[/quote]

Lixy has officially jumped the shark.

62

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Ren wrote:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Reid comforted them. They became comfortable that our leadership is weak and indecisive. They are now comfortable that homicide bombings do the trick.

Now that they know that homicide bombings are a useful tool, when will they try it (again) here, and more of them?

Reid should be arrested and put on trial at once.

[/quote]

Oh gawd,
This is just dumb as all hell.

Ret.Gen. Odom “Victory is not an option.”

Gen. McPeak: "Even if we had a million men to go in, It’s too late now,says retired four-star Gen. Tony McPeak, who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War.Humpty Dumpty can’t be put back together again.

Kissinger (A Bush war advisor):“Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who helped engineer the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, said Sunday the problems in Iraq are more complex than that conflict, and military victory is no longer possible.”

and so on…

Stop eating paste, read up on the real world, then post.
Oh and the fake outrage is just dumb.

63

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

Fund cutting isn’t the answer. Impeachment is. Bush won’t listen.

Wait - did you really just type that?[/quote]

If he fucking listen once and awhile, I don’t think it’d be necessary at all. He just refuses to even begin to listen to congress. I just wouldn’t want Cheney as the actual president, so I don’t fully support impeachment at all. I’m not radical. I can wait the 2 years till he’s through.

But, sorry, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” is a bit better than “They have WMDs and are a immediate threat to the safety of the US”.

64

You caused ALL the damage. Period.

The secretarian violence which is going on there daily, car bombs, mass shootings, ect, claiming hundreds of lives (which we are trying to stop) did not do any damage?

65

I like what Joe Lieberman wrote here…

66

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
You caused ALL the damage. Period.

The secretarian violence which is going on there daily, car bombs, mass shootings, ect, claiming hundreds of lives (which we are trying to stop) did not do any damage? [/quote]

And why did these things begin? And why are they our problem? Most Americans didn’t even know their were different kinds of Muslims before this war. They don’t give a shit now, and probably never will.

They’re gonna fight. Period. We can’t stop them. It’d be like trying to stop old-day France and England (Protestant/Catholic) from fighting. Not gonna happen. Religious conflicts don’t end because a third party from another religion comes in and says stop it.

67

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

If he fucking listen once and awhile, I don’t think it’d be necessary at all. He just refuses to even begin to listen to congress. I just wouldn’t want Cheney as the actual president, so I don’t fully support impeachment at all. I’m not radical. I can wait the 2 years till he’s through.[/quote]

Idiocy. The President is supposed to listen to Congress in matters that are exclusively his domain? And if he doesn’t, it rises to the level of a constitutional impeachable offense?

Do yourself a favor and learn up. I realize that pesky Constitution gets in the way of the Lefties’ dream world on a regular basis - but of you are going to impeach a sitting president, you are going to have to come up with something other than “he won’t listen to Congress on an issue I want him to listen to”.

Warmaking is the President’s domain. Maybe Bush should listen to Congress, maybe that would be good politics - but is he compelled to “listen” to them under pain of losing his job? Sheer stupidity. How old are you again?

Should we impeach members of Congress for not going the President’s way on issues?

Seriously, you have outdone yourself.

Clinton’s lie was to a grand jury (and he ultimately was not impeached).

Bush didn’t “lie”, no matter how many times you write it on the page. The entire world that mattered thought Saddam had WMDs - and so did the most important group of all: Congress, who authorized action there.

And if Bush was evil enough to “lie” to get us into his war, why not plant WMDs so he doesn’t look “wrong” when he invades, thus taking air out of his initial campaign there? Wouldn’t he do anything to keep the momentum for his “corporate war” going?

You keep perpetuating this lie on partisan grounds - and it makes you look even dumber.

And please - keep making the argument that Bush should be impeached for doing his job and - sniff - not listening to the Democratically controlled Congress in an area exclusive to the President’s constitutional powers.

Pure entertainment.

68

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
You caused ALL the damage. Period.

The secretarian violence which is going on there daily, car bombs, mass shootings, ect, claiming hundreds of lives (which we are trying to stop) did not do any damage? [/quote]

There wouldn’t have been violence of this scale and this magnitude if you didn’t invade.

Numerous intellectuals, military officers and analysts warned about the catastrophe to come but you were too busy buying the Bush story to listen. Brent Scowcroft’s piece comes to mind.

In case you’re wondering who Brent is, he was a United States National Security Advisor under Presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush and a Lieutenant General in the United States Air Force. He also served as Military Assistant to President Richard Nixon and as Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs in the Nixon and Ford administrations. He also served as Chairman of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under President George W. Bush

You might not connect the violence you witness on TV to the US, but the fact is that it wouldn’t be happening had you chosen negociations and diplomatic channels over brute force. But then, Halliburton, Exxon, Blackwater and other neo-con interests wouldn’t have been so well served.

Bottomline, if you didn’t go to war, none of this would have happened. Therefore, you are directly responsible for all the carnage that ensued. Heck, even hard-line American conservatives say that.

69

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I like what Joe Lieberman wrote here…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502410.html[/quote]
Nevermind his track record is zero so far, yes much better to listen to someone with no credibility on the war.

Witness the same man who apparently is dumber than dirt, said this in july:

"
I am confident that the situation is improving enough on the ground that by the end of this year we will being to draw down significant numbers of American troops and by the end of next year more than half of the troops who are there now will be home."

The guy’s really got his finger on the pulse of Iraq, don’t he?

Oh the stupidity.

70

[quote]pookie wrote:
DS 007 wrote:
now, as for robbing me blind: i work for the same organization i worked for in 2001. i now make over 30K more than i did then. i have recieved and accepted three promotions in that time. so, i haven’t been beated down by the bushies and had to surrender my paycheck to haliburton, despite what you may hear on air america.

I didn’t mean you personally, twit. A whole bunch of your social services have been cut. Millions of American have no health insurance. Your education system is a complete joke. You’ve got the worst infantile mortality rate of all western countries except for Latvia. The deficit you’re racking up will bite you in the ass eventually.

lastly, i’m not afraid of imaginary boogeymen. truth be told, i’m not afraid. but then, i’m sure that the folks sitting at their desks at the world trade center were not afraid either. see, that actually happened.

Because a bunch of incompetents clowns were not doing there job properly. Who was there when it happened? Oh right, Bush in the White House and Rudy in NY. Giuliani was so clueless that he put his Office of Emergency Management in the WTC complex.

And now we’ve got a bunch of idiots clamoring for Rudy and his dresses to move to the Whitehouse because he’s now the man for the job. Right.

bush and his buddies didn’t have to convince me that those towers were knocked down by jets flown into them by terrorists. i saw it. i happen to actually have KNOWN several people who are not longer alive because they had the misfortune of being on one of those flights, ASSHOLE.

So the people on whose watch all that happen have nothing to do with it and the blame is all on those who criticize them for sleeping at the wheel? Typical wingnut logic.

acknowledging reality is not the same thing as cowering in fear. your turn.

Is that the reality where Saddam had stockpiles of ready-to-use WMDs? Is that the reality where the insurgent have been in their last throes of agony since May 2005? Is that the reality where the Iraqis greeted you as liberators? The reality where Iraq is soon to be a shinning beacon of democracy in the region?

Because if it is, news flash for you buddy, that’s not the one you’re actually living in. Turn off Fox News once in a while and diversify your sources.
[/quote]

huh? so that’s the reality! i guess, living here and all, i missed all that! shit. typical american. just like the bushies: asleep at the wheel.

do you just puke back up the same shit you read on the left-wing blogs or do you have any opinions of your own?

71

[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I like what Joe Lieberman wrote here…

Nevermind his track record is zero so far, yes much better to listen to someone with no credibility on the war.

Witness the same man who apparently is dumber than dirt, said this in july:

"
I am confident that the situation is improving enough on the ground that by the end of this year we will being to draw down significant numbers of American troops and by the end of next year more than half of the troops who are there now will be home."

The guy’s really got his finger on the pulse of Iraq, don’t he?

Oh the stupidity.
[/quote]
I’m not agreeing with statement forecasting when we’d be able to leave. I’m agreeing with his statements about why we should stay.

72

[quote]lixy wrote:
Therefore, you are directly responsible for all the carnage that ensued. [/quote]

Are the terrorists directly responsible?

73

The US Congress’ vote to push for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq was wrong and will bring comfort to Al-Qaeda insurgents, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said Friday.

The Democrat-dominated US Senate on Thursday passed legislation which set a timeline for the recall of US troops from Iraq, where the US has been engaged in a bloody war since March 2003.

US President George W Bush has vowed to veto the law.

Howard, a staunch Bush supporter who has also committed troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, said the vote by the US Congress was “probably not helpful to the general situation in Iraq.”

“I think it is wrong, and I don’t think it is doing anything other than giving great comfort and encouragement to Al-Qaeda and the insurgency in Iraq,” Howard said.

"They are looking at all this, they read newspapers, they see it on television and they say, ‘The American domestic resolve is weakening, therefore we should maintain our resolve.’

“If there is a perception of an America defeat in Iraq, that will leave the whole of the Middle East in great turmoil and will be an enormous victory for terrorism.”

The US bill, passed by the House of Representatives on Wednesday, comes against the background of plunging public support for the war which has claimed the lives of more than 3,300 US servicemen and women.

74

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Are the terrorists directly responsible?[/quote]

Of course. But they wouldn’t have been able to operate and foster the way they did had you not invaded Iraq.

So just because they bare responsibiity doesn’t exonerate the ones that created the situation in the first place.

C’mon! Even kids can understand that actions have consequences.

In other news, water is still wet, Phillip Morris says smoking makes you sexier and Bush argues that the economy will collapse if you stop driving your oversized gas guzzlers.

Trivia bit of the day:

“In 1985, in an interview he gave with The Age published on 30 July, Howard stated that he (like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher at the time - see History of South Africa in the apartheid era) was opposed to economic sanctions against the apartheid government of South Africa.”

75

[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I like what Joe Lieberman wrote here…

Nevermind his track record is zero so far, yes much better to listen to someone with no credibility on the war.

Witness the same man who apparently is dumber than dirt, said this in july:

"
I am confident that the situation is improving enough on the ground that by the end of this year we will being to draw down significant numbers of American troops and by the end of next year more than half of the troops who are there now will be home."

The guy’s really got his finger on the pulse of Iraq, don’t he?

Oh the stupidity.
[/quote]

Hello, lumpy/bradley/100meters:

Surprised you remembered the 100meters password. How is the move upstairs going?

Quick question: Is Bush intelligent?

Thanks in advance,

JeffR

76

[quote]100meters wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Ren wrote:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Reid comforted them. They became comfortable that our leadership is weak and indecisive. They are now comfortable that homicide bombings do the trick.

Now that they know that homicide bombings are a useful tool, when will they try it (again) here, and more of them?

Reid should be arrested and put on trial at once.

Oh gawd,
This is just dumb as all hell.

Ret.Gen. Odom “Victory is not an option.”

Gen. McPeak: "Even if we had a million men to go in, It’s too late now,says retired four-star Gen. Tony McPeak, who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War.Humpty Dumpty can’t be put back together again.

Kissinger (A Bush war advisor):“Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who helped engineer the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, said Sunday the problems in Iraq are more complex than that conflict, and military victory is no longer possible.”

and so on…

Stop eating paste, read up on the real world, then post.
Oh and the fake outrage is just dumb.[/quote]

Hello, bradley/lumpy/100meters:

The very moment you post a General who predicts victory in Iraq (there are plenty), then you have credibility.

Until then, please hush.

JeffR

77

Tell me Lixy, if the US does commit a hasty withdraw, will the likes of you be responsible for the greater slaughter to follow? When the Iraqi’s actively fighting Al Qaeda and domestic terrorist are left with a “good luck,” will you be able to forgive yourself?

What will happen to the Sunnis who are now standing up to Al Qaeda and their sectarian comrades? Or, to the Shia that work to restrain others from taking part in reprisal attacks? Leave them to their fates?

You’re naive if you believe Iraqi’s won’t be killed on a much grander scale. The responsibility will fall on the likes of you if the US listens to your ilk and makes a hasty retreat. What about those ‘consequences?’

78

WASHINGTON - The
Pentagon announced Friday the capture of one of al-Qaida’s most senior and most experienced operatives, an Iraqi who was trying to return to his native country when he was captured.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070427/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_capture

Make no mistake, Iraq is essential to Al Qaeda. But hey, we ‘lost’ and should just leave Iraq to them, and the sectarian death squads aligned with them. It’s disheartening that Al Qaeda’s level of involment and actions speak volumes about their need to be victorious in Iraq. Yet, we’re poised to hand them their victory?

79

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You’re naive if you believe Iraqi’s won’t be killed on a much grander scale. The responsibility will fall on the likes of you if the US listens to your ilk and makes a hasty retreat. What about those ‘consequences?’
[/quote]

Pure speculation.

If the US withdraws, I’m sure there’ll be no more dead Americans in Iraq, no more calls for resisting the occupier by Al-Qaeda and no more clashes between US troops and the insurgents.

Whether the Sunnis will stop killing the Shi’ites (and vice-versa) is another story. From the looks of it, the US is accelerating the balkanization of the place and exacerbating the sectarian fracture by building shameful separation walls.

Those walls are opposed not only by the population, but even by the Iraqi government who condemned the US for setting up these things. How then can the Iraqi officials look their compratriots in the eyes and claim they have sovereignty?

80

[quote]Sloth wrote:
WASHINGTON - The
Pentagon announced Friday the capture of one of al-Qaida’s most senior and most experienced operatives, an Iraqi who was trying to return to his native country when he was captured.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070427/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_capture

Make no mistake, Iraq is essential to Al Qaeda. But hey, we ‘lost’ and should just leave Iraq to them, and the sectarian death squads aligned with them. It’s disheartening that Al Qaeda’s level of involment and actions speak volumes about their need to be victorious in Iraq. Yet, we’re poised to hand them their victory? [/quote]

Sloth,

I saw that Saudi Arabia captured a hoarde of weapons and material today.

I have no doubt they will be less vigilant and more willing to accomodate the extremists the minute the American ground troops leave.

Even symbolic pursuit will cease.

JeffR