Good News for the Good Guys!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]JeffR wrote:
"TriGWU wrote:
Now that I’ve posted in the steriod forum… once… I figure I owe a post to “the other dark side”…

so here is my first post in the politics forum…

oh… and my theory remains… Bin Laden is set up in a Ramada somewhere in DC. I thought they were going to pull 'im out for the election.

so wait… is this the Ace of clubs?"

Great post.

I love John Kerry fans!!!

Remember: George Senior bought Halliburton. The profits went to buy W out of the buard and into school. The profits were then used to pay every voter to vote for W. (I’ve been living high off the Halliburton Hog!!!).

Therefore, W. invaded Iraq to give Halliburton a contract as payback!!!

JeffR

[/quote]

I actually voted for W. My old man fought in Vietnam. Call me lame… but I have every bit of respect for the VietVets. I had to vote against.

22

[quote]Tri wrote:

“I actually voted for W. My old man fought in Vietnam. Call me lame… but I have every bit of respect for the VietVets. I had to vote against.” [/quote]

Don’t I feel like a f… a…!!!

Sorry.

I insulted you by assuming you were a democrat.

JeffR

23

Snoop,

“You didn’t really have a point. You decided that Bush and/or his admistration deserved the credit for the capture of these criminals. While totally ignoring the people in the trenches who made it happen.”

That is not even close to what I actually posted.

Try again (aka…read it).

“I do agree that some intellegent things have been done by his administration, namely the improved relationship with Pakistan.”

I was proved wrong!!! You can do it!!!

“Bush has nothing to do with planning or executing any military operations he may give the go ahead but that is only after someone tells him it is ok to do so.”

Probably a little simplistic. We’ll hold off for about ten years and see how much he was and is actually involved in the details.

JeffR

24

Moriarty wrote:
"JeffR, question for you. It’s a little unrelated to this topic, but it has its relevance.

Are you upset at all, even the tiniest bit, that we haven’t captured Bin Laden yet?"

Absolutely. However, one of the major differences between you and I is that I don’t automatically decide that the Administration is incompetent.

I don’t mean to be insulting to you. However, over the internet I have no idea how much you know about the region he hides in. You may know that that that border region is one of the most forbidding and remote on the planet. Further, complicating the matter is the “code” of hospitality in the region. In short, if someone asks for hospitality, it is given and the person is protected with all vigour by the host.

“I ask because no matter who I talk to in real life (not this forum), liberal, dem, repub, or conservative, voted for Bush or not, almost everyone is a little pissed that the mastermind behind one of the most sinister attacks in American history has been running around free for the last 4 years. I understand that you have confidence that we’ll get him eventually, so do I, but I’m still a little pissed we didn’t get him 4 years ago.”

I’m actually not surprised we haven’t captured him. He had all the time in the world to plan. He set the time and date for the attack. He is a total scum, but must have some iota of “intelligence.” He had to know what would happen if he attacked America. Especially under the watch of a Texan!!!

“Doesn’t it upset you at all that he isn’t in a box yet?”

Yes. Doesn’t it make you pleased that we have captured many of the most influential of his cadre?

“It just seems weird how you seem to be totally ok with Bin Laden being free, and you chastize others on this board for being upset he isn’t captured yet.”

Where the f… did this comment come from?

If “being ok with” it means that I’m not ready to castigate Bush and call him “hitler,” I suppose I am.

“It’s almost like you want him to be free, or you want to make excuses for why it’s ok for him to be free right now.”

Seriously, did you think about this?

Why would any American want him free?

You ding-dongs use that as a crutch to berate W. You say that “if we hadn’t invaded Iraq we would have captured Bin Laden.” It’s nonsense, of course, but there it is.

I like to remove any potential “ammo” from you ding-dongs (even if it is rubbish).

JeffR

25

Moriarty wrote:
“As a side note, was I the only one that, for a year after 9/11, went STRAIGHT from my bed to my computer when I woke up hoping to see “BIN LADEN CAPTURED” on cnn.com? I literally did that everyday for a year. Even now, a couple of times a week, when I wake up I load up cnn.com and while it’s loading hope I see that headline.”

Do it daily. See today’s thread about the number three capture.

"I don’t know, it seems like some Americans (like JeffR) seem to have this opinion:

“So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him , to be honest with you. I truly am not that concerned about him. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country.”"

Complete rubbish.

“Kinda weird, don’t you think? Am I in the minority still being concerned about Bin Laden and wanting him captured ASAP?”

You are part of the lunatic-left minority fringe.

Other than that, your opinion about bin laden is certainly not unique.

JeffR

26

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Tri wrote:

“I actually voted for W. My old man fought in Vietnam. Call me lame… but I have every bit of respect for the VietVets. I had to vote against.”

Don’t I feel like a f… a…!!!

Sorry.

I insulted you by assuming you were a democrat.

JeffR

[/quote]

(rolling eyes.)…see what happens when you assume…?

27

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Some nonsense about how he doesn’t mind Bin Laden being free.
[/quote]

Wow, JeffR will come up with any justification why it’s ok that Bin Laden is free. Pretty disgusting, especially coming from an American.

You’re free to your opinion though, even if I disagree.

28

http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/./1/.1115244347310.bush_abdullah.jpg

“If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you’re a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends.”
-George W. Bush

Saudi Government Provided Aid to 9/11 Hijackers, Sources Say
By Josh Meyer
The Los Angeles Times
02 August 2003
WASHINGTON - The 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts, according to sources familiar with the document.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080303A.shtml

Bin Laden comes home to roost
His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story
By Michael Moran
MSNBC
NEW YORK, Aug. 24, 1998 - At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term that describes an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback. And the fact that he is viewed as a hero by millions in the Islamic world proves again the old adage: Reap what you sow.

More Agents Track Castro Than Bin Laden
by John Solomon
the Associated Press
April 29, 2004
WASHINGTON - The Treasury Department agency entrusted with blocking the financial resources of terrorists has assigned five times as many agents to investigate Cuban embargo violations as it has to track Osama bin Laden’s and Saddam Hussein’s money, documents show.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0429-12.htm

As myth has it he’ll also be riding a unicorn when he’s captured.

29

JTF,

Do you even the read the garbage you post as evidence for your ridiculous ideas first?

Treasury Dept. - that lopsided assignment was instigated in 1990. Shutting down illegal business contacts with Cuba was a priority - after all, as of 1990, how may terror attacks had we suffered?

Don’t forget, this policy was created prior to the 1991 Gulf War, which was presumably one of the main drivers of OBL’s desire to attack the West - ie, US presence in the Gulf and in Saudi Arabia, etc. In this context, why would targeting OBL in 1990 make sense?

Also, as the priorities shifted in the 1990’s, it would have been the Clinton administration’s call to get the necessary reform. Now I am not here to ‘blame’ Clinton, but since 8 years went by without reform under Clinton’s watch, it is foolish to think that somehow this policy is the dark conspiracy of the Bush dynasty. But then, common sense has never been your strong suit.

Moreover, the article itself talks about how government officials were voicing concerns that there was a failure in the bureaucracy to adequately adapt from the Cold War to the Age of Terror - an important topic, but it can be hardly said that bureaucratic failure and oversight can be realistic evidence of a conspiracy to intentionally not go after OBL.

Just plain idiocy, JTF.

“As myth has it he’ll also be riding a unicorn when he’s captured.”

You know, JTF, I almost didn’t reply to this - there’s no sport in refuting you anymore.

30

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
“If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you’re a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends.”
-George W. Bush

Saudi Government Provided Aid to 9/11 Hijackers, Sources Say
By Josh Meyer
The Los Angeles Times
02 August 2003
WASHINGTON - The 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts, according to sources familiar with the document.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080303A.shtml

…[/quote]

The US also allowed millions to flow to the terrorists through charities and other fronts.

If we had been in a state of war with Saudi Arabia since 1991 we probably would have invaded them first.

Saudi Arabia will change or be changed when the time is right.

31

JTF, keep pointing out the hypocrisy. Those of us who don’t have the blind allegiance of an SS officer appreciate it.

32

Someone, I think Professor X, seemed to blame Bush for acting on bad intel in going into Iraq.
In this one particular issue, I did agree with Bill Clinton when Bill said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and we had a clear reason to go into Iraq. I also agreed with the Clinton Administration’s new policy of “regime change” for Iraq. The difference is, his administration was not the one to do it.
As a military officer, I was NEVER under the impression, neither were any of my colleagues, that GW was substituting Osama for Saddam. There never where any blurring of the missions focus with respect to the (read!) “big picture” WAR ON TERROR.

Just a military man’s perspective…

Peace…
Donnie…

33

[quote]PtrDR wrote:
Someone, I think Professor X, seemed to blame Bush for acting on bad intel in going into Iraq.
In this one particular issue, I did agree with Bill Clinton when Bill said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and we had a clear reason to go into Iraq. I also agreed with the Clinton Administration’s new policy of “regime change” for Iraq. The difference is, his administration was not the one to do it.
As a military officer, I was NEVER under the impression, neither were any of my colleagues, that GW was substituting Osama for Saddam. There never where any blurring of the missions focus with respect to the (read!) “big picture” WAR ON TERROR.

Just a military man’s perspective…

Peace…
Donnie…[/quote]

So you truly believe that we went into Iraq and gained public support for it because it had NOTHING to do with 9/11? I think you will find that if this is the case, you were one out of millions who believed that going into Iraq was a related cause to 9/11, not some seperate entity.

34

Elk,

Do us a favor and add something - anything - productive to the conversation.

JTF keeps spouting silly invectives that anyone who has a realistic grasp of the history of it can explain away.

We all know about OBL’s relationship with the CIA - and the argument that we ‘created’ OBL makes about as much sense as we ‘created’ the Soviet Union in WWII by allying with them to defeat the Nazis. Shrill repetition does not make a weak argument any better.

As for the relationship with the Saudis - I don’t like it, but Bush has done more to chill that relationship than anyone has since the nexus between Saudi Arabia and the US began mid-century (yes, the relationship goes back roughly 60 years to every President since FDR).

Moreover, as a cheap supplier of our oil, what would the consequences of a radical rejection of SA be? Oil recession? Who knows for sure, but for one thing I am certain - if that occurred, whiney Leftists would be screeching to the high heavens over Bush starting a recession and creating unemployment. After all, the Left doesn’t have realistic alternative solutions, just pouting and griping.

Again, the choice here is between something bad and something worse - not an easy utopian no-brainer. As such, Leftists aren’t equipped to handle such decisions, and in the instant case, I can’t figure out which is worse: a conspiratorial ankle-biter or his sycophantic cheerleader.

35

Well, most people wouldn’t want to concede a point when the other side is constantly rubbing it in their face. Everyone should just chill out and make the world better instead of “I’ll make it better than you.”

36

Pro X,

“So you truly believe that we went into Iraq and gained public support for it because it had NOTHING to do with 9/11? I think you will find that if this is the case, you were one out of millions who believed that going into Iraq was a related cause to 9/11, not some seperate entity.”

Most war-supporters believe that the Iraq war had something to do with 9/11, just not in the way you seem to insist in your broken record kind of way.

It was related in the sense of being part of a larger concern over the nexus between rogue states, terror elements, and the consequences of international appeasement with regards to these problems.

Your simplistic approach is limited - 9/11 affects how we do everything. National security, regardless of the specific threat, was changed because of 9/11.

Our approach with North Korea is affected by 9/11 - even though no one thinks Kim Jong Il had a part in the attacks. But what does a dictatorial Leftist and a Muslim fundemantalist have in common? A desire for power and conquest over the West. After getting hit in the mouth, our approach to any threat has a direct relation to the consequences of 9/11.

WWII taught us harsh lessons about assuming that bad guys would never work together. After all, Mussolini delcared Hitler a “barbarian, a criminal and a pederast”. Those guys would never join forces and cause the world great nmisery - or would they?

You desparately cling to the notion that ‘related to 9/11’ means thinking that Saddam Hussein was part of the plot. Nope. There are quite a few that believe he was involved, even if tangentially, but most people who relate the two are seeing it in a broader context.

37

Sycophantic cheerleader, good one you intellectual smarty pants you. Thunder, I would agree that their are many complexities involving the history and subsequent policy we have to follow.

Where I differ from you is that you use those complexities to rationalize and justify your and your parties position and policies while at the same time using them to discount any opposing position.

Another words like clay you mold the facts to justify where you stand. Therefore from my perspective you lose credibility and will not look at things objectively. Laters, Elk

38

Thunder, don’t worry anyone who doesn’t agree with Brother Elk is just a piece of clay molded by the administration. Of course I am an uneducated nitwit bongsmoker in Elks mind so really do you expect someone of his moral authority and clear thinking to actually take the time to contribute to our second rate debate? He is trying to help us though in case you can’t tell, with his endless ridiculing of us, he is actually trying to get us to see the light and come to grips with the fact that we are indeed mindless robot morons who can’t think but are merely programmed. He is trying to break us out of our shell and I commend him in his efforts.

V

39

Gee veg, don’t let me get to you like that. You’re going to need to toughen up when you make the move out of mom and pops place. Oh yeah, Lance said you sound like a whiney liberal with your little pout session above.

40

Veg, the problem is Elk is right, though it happens on both sides, I’ll have to say.

Often, people stop asking questions when the answers don’t support the conclusion they have already come to. That’s too bad.

In general, society would be better off if we’d all dig a little deeper. I’ll admit that the insinuations raised by JTF make me nervous. I don’t mean by this that I agree with those issues. They are just damned scary concepts and I’d rather they weren’t true.

I’d hope they are just puff and bullshit and don’t mean anything. However, that shouldn’t stop me from reading them with an open mind to see if anything stands up to the light of day.

Blind allegiance to authority is an incredibly dangerous thing. I promise I’ll say the same thing when a democrat is eventually in power again too!

Note to ass clowns, this is not a pro-liberal or anti-conservative post.