Saddam's Terror Training Camps

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I just happened to catch that segment yesterday. The way JTF is reporting it makes it sound as if it was indeed a news story. It was an opinion piece with two panelists and Cavuto that were discussing the abhorant behavior of the idiot left. I would invite you to actually watch/listen to the confirmation hearings before believing a goddamned thing JTF has to report.

If you think it was just Graham doing the talking - you are sadly mistaken. 100M is a slick propaganda machine, and JTF is…well… JTF. To believe anything he has to say is pretty much an admission of owning tin-foil hats, and swastika lapel pins.

I admit I haven’t caught ANY news lately until long after shit happens, however, if the article is right, what is he wrong about?[/quote]

That’s what I am saying - the article is not right. It is a left-wing look at a right-wing opinion show. Addditionally - no kittens were killed and sacrificed during the show either.

62

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

And I do agree with thabidgon’s post, except I think it is blatant why we went in. The US is putting a strong military prescence where the oil is. [/quote]

It gets old reading this tripe. I have wrote this before, but read below a portion President Carter’s 1980 State of the Union address.

The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world’s exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world’s oil must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil.

This situation demands careful thought, steady nerves, and resolute action, not only for this year but for many years to come. It demands collective efforts to meet this new threat to security in the Persian Gulf and in Southwest Asia. It demands the participation of all those who rely on oil from the Middle East and who are concerned with global peace and stability. And it demands consultation and close cooperation with countries in the area which might be threatened.

Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course, military capability. We must call on the best that is in us to preserve the security of this crucial region.

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

Argue all you want about the reasons we should or should not of went in, but using the same old we went for the oil, is the same pack of lies liberals have been using for years. I joined the military in 1988 and have been deploying to that region ever since. The reality is that we have always had a strong presence there and will continue to maintain it long after you and I are gone. The base the we fly out of has a 99 year lease with our government, so even if we completely pulled out of Iraq nothing would change except for the nightly news broadcasting what a failure the whole operation is ans has been.

63

[quote]CDM wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

And I do agree with thabidgon’s post, except I think it is blatant why we went in. The US is putting a strong military prescence where the oil is.

It gets old reading this tripe. I have wrote this before, but read below a portion President Carter’s 1980 State of the Union address.

The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world’s exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world’s oil must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil.

This situation demands careful thought, steady nerves, and resolute action, not only for this year but for many years to come. It demands collective efforts to meet this new threat to security in the Persian Gulf and in Southwest Asia. It demands the participation of all those who rely on oil from the Middle East and who are concerned with global peace and stability. And it demands consultation and close cooperation with countries in the area which might be threatened.

Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course, military capability. We must call on the best that is in us to preserve the security of this crucial region.

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

Argue all you want about the reasons we should or should not of went in, but using the same old we went for the oil, is the same pack of lies liberals have been using for years. I joined the military in 1988 and have been deploying to that region ever since. The reality is that we have always had a strong presence there and will continue to maintain it long after you and I are gone. The base the we fly out of has a 99 year lease with our government, so even if we completely pulled out of Iraq nothing would change except for the nightly news broadcasting what a failure the whole operation is ans has been.

[/quote]

So what’s your point? I said this war is about oil. You respond that “Yes, this war is about oil”. Great.

Opposing the Soviet Union was something that had to be done. I can understand Carter’s issues with this.

However, there was no excuse this time. I don’t care at all if you, or any other neocon, is getting tired of hearing that this war, and every action in the Middle East, is about oil. Not about freedom- about oil. Just because you are “tired of hearing it” it doesn’t mean its a lie, it just means gasp it might be true.

64

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:

Graham makes her cry (and coached Alito) and Dems take the blame, and the so-called liberal media swallows the whole lie. Hilarious.

On cause, see my post immediately above.

On your parenthetical, do you really think Alito needed to be coached by Graham? If so, are you kidding me?

I wish that candidates weren’t in the position of having to sit there and take such crap, without being able to say what they are probably thinking.

What could Alito have been thinking to be sitting there, and essentially be lectured on ethics by Ted Kennedy.

Ted Kennedy giving advice on ethics is like Andrea Yates giving advice on parenting.[/quote]

He WAS coached by Graham, Meiers, and others too. What does “need” have to do with it. He can’t say what he’s thinking because he’d never be confirmed, that’s the whole point of the coaching of course! What would he say about CAP, “Yeah I put it down on my resume, because I knew belonging to a racist, sexist good ol’ boys club would help me get a job with Meese. I’m not a racist (note: he’s not), but you see I was kind of lying a little to get a job.”

The logical assumption by the committee then would be: Maybe he’s lying now to get this job. (note: he is).

If he was really honest he’d turn around and apologize to his poor wife for ever doing something so stupid in the first place.

65

[quote]
100meters wrote:

Graham makes her cry (and coached Alito) and Dems take the blame, and the so-called liberal media swallows the whole lie. Hilarious.

BostonBarrister wrote:

On cause, see my post immediately above.

On your parenthetical, do you really think Alito needed to be coached by Graham? If so, are you kidding me?

I wish that candidates weren’t in the position of having to sit there and take such crap, without being able to say what they are probably thinking.

What could Alito have been thinking to be sitting there, and essentially be lectured on ethics by Ted Kennedy.

Ted Kennedy giving advice on ethics is like Andrea Yates giving advice on parenting.

100meters wrote:

He WAS coached by Graham, Meiers, and others too. What does “need” have to do with it. He can’t say what he’s thinking because he’d never be confirmed, that’s the whole point of the coaching of course! What would he say about CAP, “Yeah I put it down on my resume, because I knew belonging to a racist, sexist good ol’ boys club would help me get a job with Meese. I’m not a racist (note: he’s not), but you see I was kind of lying a little to get a job.”

The logical assumption by the committee then would be: Maybe he’s lying now to get this job. (note: he is).

If he was really honest he’d turn around and apologize to his poor wife for ever doing something so stupid in the first place.[/quote]

I know he met with lots of people, but I’ve yet to see anything that would indicate he was being “coached” on what to say.

W/r/t CAP, you know that whole thing was a giant crock of crap. It doesn’t even warrant discussion, let alone the hours of bloviating it received.

BTW, Alito was originally hired to the SG’s office when Carter’s SG was still in charge there…

W/r/t lying, what are you talking about?

66

CDM: good post

67

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

100meters wrote:

Graham makes her cry (and coached Alito) and Dems take the blame, and the so-called liberal media swallows the whole lie. Hilarious.

BostonBarrister wrote:

On cause, see my post immediately above.

On your parenthetical, do you really think Alito needed to be coached by Graham? If so, are you kidding me?

I wish that candidates weren’t in the position of having to sit there and take such crap, without being able to say what they are probably thinking.

What could Alito have been thinking to be sitting there, and essentially be lectured on ethics by Ted Kennedy.

Ted Kennedy giving advice on ethics is like Andrea Yates giving advice on parenting.

100meters wrote:

He WAS coached by Graham, Meiers, and others too. What does “need” have to do with it. He can’t say what he’s thinking because he’d never be confirmed, that’s the whole point of the coaching of course! What would he say about CAP, “Yeah I put it down on my resume, because I knew belonging to a racist, sexist good ol’ boys club would help me get a job with Meese. I’m not a racist (note: he’s not), but you see I was kind of lying a little to get a job.”

The logical assumption by the committee then would be: Maybe he’s lying now to get this job. (note: he is).

If he was really honest he’d turn around and apologize to his poor wife for ever doing something so stupid in the first place.

I know he met with lots of people, but I’ve yet to see anything that would indicate he was being “coached” on what to say.

W/r/t CAP, you know that whole thing was a giant crock of crap. It doesn’t even warrant discussion, let alone the hours of bloviating it received.

BTW, Alito was originally hired to the SG’s office when Carter’s SG was still in charge there…

W/r/t lying, what are you talking about?[/quote]

With regards to lying.
Puts down CAP on resume. A racist organization, Period. Is Alito a racist? NO! He put it down, because he thought it would look good to those hiring him.(Attny. Gen. Meese–Alito cited CAP in 1985(not during Carter)) and it DID!

Does he really not remember doing this, or belonging of joining? Of course he does! But how on earth could he admit it, because then he’s admitting to lying to get jobs (saying/writing anything down to get a job—supreme court judge for one)

Of course asking him about CAP is not a giant crock of crap—HIS ANSWER IS!

“I don’t recollect” is not a credible/honest answer.

As for coached.
Feingold:
I?m going to say that I am still somewhat troubled by the idea that you were prepared for this hearing by some lawyers who were very much involved in promoting the purported legal justification for the NSA wiretapping program?.

I note, for example, that one of the people who participated in these sessions was Benjamin Powell. He recently advised President Bush on intelligence matters and was just given a recess appointment as general counsel to the national intelligence director.

I also see the name of White House Counsel Harriet Miers on the list. And she, obviously, is involved in the president?s position on this matter.

and Graham:
“On Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the ?gang of 14″ who sits on Judiciary, joined a so-called moot court session at the White House.”

These ARE coaching sessions.

68

[quote]rainjack wrote:
This is in no way excusing the McCarthy like tactics of the idiot left on the committee (you know - “Gin- Nosed Ted”, “Is-This-Mike-On Biden”, et al).[/quote]

You would think Coulter would have a finer appreciation for the left…

We’re hiring the guy for LIFE. The message from the right is, do not question. There are far too many questions – OH! Now look, you made his wife cry with your pointed questions!

FOX News Alert – “Dems Condone Inhumane Death of Puppy”
First it was the ‘War on Christmas’ and now this. In Washington today a Republican Senator stomped a lost puppy to death.

When questioned about the incident, the senator, visibly shaken by the ordeal, replied that he had taken in the wandering puppy and was going to place it with a friendly, caring family. At the last minute he thought – what might a democrat do in this situation? To his shock and disgust, he found himself stomping the puppy to a bloody pulp.

“If the liberals could do this to a puppy, is it any wonder why they want to hand over America to the terrorists?”, he said.

In keeping with typical democratic strategy, the Dems have quickly tried to distance themselves from this most recent incident and have denied any involvement.

Dr Sen Frist was quoted as saying, “If Democrats think they’re going to win back seats from the Republicans in the next election by giving up on the troops in Iraq, ruining Christmas and killing puppies, they obviously aren’t in touch with the majority of the American people.”

69

Going back a bit…

Did anybody actually watch the hearing?

She didn’t cry because of any fucking particular question. She cried when, after asking if he was a bigot, the senator started to heap some praise on him instead. He mentioned how everyone regarded him as a good and respected man.

That is when she left the room, because that brought tears to her eyes. She was embarrassed by the episode.

All the partisan hacks bitching about left and right tactics need to realize they are just jumping on bandwagons as they usually do.

70

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Dr Sen Frist was quoted as saying, “If Democrats think they’re going to win back seats from the Republicans in the next election by giving up on the troops in Iraq, ruining Christmas and killing puppies, they obviously aren’t in touch with the majority of the American people.”
[/quote]

That’s some of the funniest stuff I have gleaned from your posts in a long time.

71

[quote]vroom wrote:
Going back a bit…

Did anybody actually watch the hearing?

She didn’t cry because of any fucking particular question. She cried when, after asking if he was a bigot, the senator started to heap some praise on him instead. He mentioned how everyone regarded him as a good and respected man.

That is when she left the room, because that brought tears to her eyes. She was embarrassed by the episode.

All the partisan hacks bitching about left and right tactics need to realize they are just jumping on bandwagons as they usually do.[/quote]

Thank God the thinktard showed up top save us all from our uneducated selves.

I watched/listened to the hearings, and it was a circus - mainly from the bloated pompous ramblings of the left, which has conducted themselves like complete morons during the last several confirmation hearings.

Can’t anyone find anything less damaging for Kennedy to do on Capitol Hill? He’s single handedly making the left look like complete idiots. Not that they need much help in the first place, but with this drunken murderer leading the freak parade, it is no wonder that they are losing election after election.

72

Hey, Crackerjack, not finding much happiness in the new year?

What is your hard-on for Kennedy all about. Whether or not you like the man, it is his job to raise issues and have them discussed. This is really a non-issue.

Maybe your hatred of the man, and your own bias is showing through?

73

[quote]rainjack wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
Dr Sen Frist was quoted as saying, “If Democrats think they’re going to win back seats from the Republicans in the next election by giving up on the troops in Iraq, ruining Christmas and killing puppies, they obviously aren’t in touch with the majority of the American people.”

That’s some of the funniest stuff I have gleaned from your posts in a long time.
[/quote]

Yeah I kinda got on a roll there… Dr Sen Frist… Oh my abs.

74

Good piece by a liberal Democrat Dahlia Lithwick fo Slate on the general approach to the Alito proceedings. Instead of talking turkey - and getting Alito to answer, at length, tough judicial/philosophical questions regarding ideas like originalism or the nature of the commerce clause - the preening Democratic Senators barely touched substantive issues and decided instead to try put on a show for their own self-gratification.

Money line:

“In short?and I am now going to ask you, Sen. Durbin, to stop waiting around for Sen. Coburn to apologize and go on home??it may be time for you, Senate Democrats, to get to know a few federalists, to focus on their ideas as opposed to their integrity, and to think of a better strategy for talking to them the next time around.”

75

[quote]vroom wrote:
Can’t anyone find anything less damaging for Kennedy to do on Capitol Hill? He’s single handedly making the left look like complete idiots. Not that they need much help in the first place, but with this drunken murderer leading the freak parade, it is no wonder that they are losing election after election.

Hey, Crackerjack, not finding much happiness in the new year?

What is your hard-on for Kennedy all about. Whether or not you like the man, it is his job to raise issues and have them discussed. This is really a non-issue.

Maybe your hatred of the man, and your own bias is showing through?[/quote]

My year is going much better than planned, thanks.

Kennedy is a murdeous drunk that has never held a job, and wants to take more of my money out of my pocket, while he hides behind his daddy’s trust and pays very little of the taxes he thinks everyone else should pay.

He rarely makes a valid point when he opens his gin-drenched mouth.

He is everything that is wrong with the left.

76

[quote]vroom wrote:

What is your hard-on for Kennedy all about. Whether or not you like the man, it is his job to raise issues and have them discussed. This is really a non-issue.

Maybe your hatred of the man, and your own bias is showing through?[/quote]

I don’t think RJ’s bias - as strong as it is against Red Nosed Ted - is the basis.

By all accounts - bipartisan commentary, mind you - Kennedy was an embarrassment. And his performance was not only vile and venomous when it didn’t have to be - it was stupid. Kennedy didn’t lay a glove on Alito on substantive matters, and that was his job.

Kennedy has a duty to the American people to ask meaningful questions, not the garbage he was offering up. I have no problem with any Democrat giving Alito a tough wy to go on legitimate grounds - make the guy defend his philosophy.

But Kennedy - to the shame of many Democrats - flopped, and hard, with his attempted characted assassination.

And there is something laughable about Kennedy trying to impugn Alito for a lack of ethical and moral behavior.

77

[quote]Kennedy is a murdeous drunk that has never held a job, and wants to take more of my money out of my pocket, while he hides behind his daddy’s trust and pays very little of the taxes he thinks everyone else should pay.

He rarely makes a valid point when he opens his gin-drenched mouth.

He is everything that is wrong with the left.[/quote]

That’s very charitable of you. So, in his case the legal system is no good, in that you need no other proof for your accusations, and unlike everyone else, Ted isn’t allowed to take lawful steps to reduce his taxes?

Ahahahaha. Hate the guy all you want, but realize your comments show the double standard you practice on a daily basis.

78

[quote]vroom wrote:
Kennedy is a murdeous drunk that has never held a job, and wants to take more of my money out of my pocket, while he hides behind his daddy’s trust and pays very little of the taxes he thinks everyone else should pay.

He rarely makes a valid point when he opens his gin-drenched mouth.

He is everything that is wrong with the left.

That’s very charitable of you. So, in his case the legal system is no good, in that you need no other proof for your accusations, and unlike everyone else, Ted isn’t allowed to take lawful steps to reduce his taxes?

Ahahahaha. Hate the guy all you want, but realize your comments show the double standard you practice on a daily basis.[/quote]

You defense of the biggest idiot inside the beltway speaks volumes.

Like I’m going to listen to a thinktard liberal hack like you try to tell me about double standards. You are the biggest fucking joke around here.

What’s the deal? Is there snow under your tree such that you can’t go outside and sit under it this afternoon? Why don’t you just go start your own thread. Oh wait - you did - and hardly anyone gives a shit about what you have to say.

Maybe you should learn something from that.

79

Crackerjack,

I’m not defending Ted Kennedy so much as pointing out your hostility, hatred and double standards.

There is a difference…

I really don’t care one way or the other concerning Kennedy. I do think however that he is simply a lightning rod for right wing hate mongering.

Does he say stupid things? Sure. Are some of his statements a waste of time? Sure.

Grow up.

80

[quote]vroom wrote:
Grow up.[/quote]

You first, pee wee.