Typical Republican Hypocrisy

“we knew about the attacks before they happened the other day.
so i say, yeah, we are safer. we saw it coming. you sad sacks are gettign boring and hard to take seriously with your contorted logic and scare tactics..... america is growing up and facing something that we have ignored a long time. it's time to deal with this once and for all. the fanatics that hate you have sworn to die in order to bring about our demise. that warrants pretty much any response we can muster.



lead , follow, or get the PHUCK outta the way.....”

“Well, we know which one you are doing, Strat.

BAAAAAAAhhhhhhhh...”

“So strat, you're saying that because we knew about the attacks before they happened, we're safer? Are the people who were killed any less dead because we had an idea these attacks might happen?

Also, we had information of the 9/11 attacks beforehand. I don't see how this made us any safer.

By the way, the "kill all the fanatics" type aregument is fundamentally flawed, can you spot why?”

“Remember: we had the information, but did nothing with it."

I prefer to see the glass as half-full.

I completely ignored the Clinton administration post-impeachment, but I do remember alot of news coverage about FBI ills (something about shady files?). I believe it would be safe to say that Clinton left the Bureau in pretty bad shape.

Yet I *almost* want to commend the FBI for their efforts pre-9/11. They were on to something, and given time, prolly coulda pieced together enough of the puzzle to have prevented the attacks.

The government's pre-9/11 "incompetence" pales in comparison to the debacle of pre-Pearl Harbor. The Japs flooded the airwaves with constant chatter ala misinformation. I suspect Al Quaida took similar action - to a lesser degree, tho.”

“In keeping with that theme, I think military movements will be largely inneffective in combatting terror in its current form in the middle east. Forcing countries to put a show of policing for terrorists in the ME will force terrorists further underground, but I can't see it stamping it out or reducing the funding, as it comes from mainly non-government sources

No one thinks it's realistic to expect an end to terrorism. But without state support and without major funding, the nature of terrorist operations will be on the level of car bombs. And with proper cooperation from countries, even these small-scale attacks will result in a much larger expenditure of the terrorists' resources than it does now.

The problem is, we need to gain cooperation from those countries that have terrorists in their territory. If diplomacy fails, then military action, or the threat of it, is necessary. Already we're seeing cooperation from Syria. Iran is putting out feelers, trying to engage the U.S. in a pragmatic way. Saudi Arabia is in the hot seat presently and will very likely be forced to take more drastic actions. All of these developments are a direct result of the invasion of Iraq.

Plus, we have the nice side-effect of seeing France, Russia, and China humbled! But that's beside the point.”

“Send up a flare when/if they find the WMD, otherwise...

Or are you hacks going to try to pin your war on Clinton, too?

LOL”

“Yeah. That BJ he got really screwed things up!!”

“tilt; if bush was lying about WMD's, why not just plant them and say..."SEE!? HERE THEY ARE!" ? hmmmmmmm?

"So strat, you're saying that because we knew about the attacks before they happened, we're safer? Are the people who were killed any less dead because we had an idea these attacks might happen?

Also, we had information of the 9/11 attacks beforehand. I don't see how this made us any safer.

By the way, the "kill all the fanatics" type aregument is fundamentally flawed, can you spot why?"
Phaedrus
yeah phaed, cuz you're a wimp. and the people still died because the saudi's ignored our warnings and failed to provide security.


"If we are forced, at every hour, to watch or listen to
horrible events, this constant stream of ghastly impressions
will deprive even the most delicate among us of all respect for
humanity." --Cicero”

“as best I can tell, this is your argument?

yeah phaed, cuz you're a wimp. and the people still died because the saudi's ignored our warnings and failed to provide security.

It was the Saudi's fault? I thought we had made the ME safe from AL Qaeda by invading Iraq!”

“You are making a difference! Keep it up! Some of you should run for office! What kind of back pack do you think Clinton owns?”

“phaed, you can't make me look stupid, cuz i'm not.

i can , however , make you look like a pathetic, oprha loving, whining liberal eating sour grapes....

it is the fault of a fanatical wing of a religion. it will not go away by makin nice. nothing will ever change their minds but brute force. thay have declared war on you....and all you can do is whine about al gore.....”

“You mention that the terrorists will be more active, but say this is a good thing, because we can combat them when they strike?"
~Phaedrus

You're mincing my words, or perhaps you misunderstood. Not "when", but "before" they strike.”

“Like this last time?”

“gojo, you're wrong....














i think they are acting more like grade schoolers...”

“"Like this last time?"
~Phaedrus

Again, the American ambassador asked for stepped-up security based on prior knowledge, but the Saudis refused.

I pray that this event will once and for all confirm our obligation to act preemptively and/or unilatterally.

Either way, you're gonna b!tch and moan. If we had placed Marine checkpoints throughout the surrounding neighborhoods, you, Cynthia McKenny, and your Saudi cohorts would have gone through the roof...”

“No substantive rebuttal?”

“Mutt, our difference comes in that you believe the governments of the ME are responsible for the terror movement, in some way. I believe the islamist movement, along with all its cultish wish for death is free of any country. If we get Syria to crack down, they'll move to Iran, if we get Iran to crack down, they'll move to another country, while maintaing their lower-profile presence in each of the previous two and so on.

We are battling an ideology, and we won't defeat that ideology that crosses politcal and physical boundaries with warfare or economics, IMO.”

“maybe dr phil could help, phaed...”

“"We are battling an ideology, and we won't defeat that ideology that crosses politcal and physical boundaries with warfare or economics, IMO."
~Phaedrus
09:04:18 AM
05/16/03

But we must, so we will.
Where you been?

When Clinton looked directly into the eyes of Americans, he had a tendancy to lie.

Bush, however, says what he means, and means what he says.”

“We are battling an ideology, and we won't defeat that ideology that crosses politcal and physical boundaries with warfare or economics, IMO

Then how do we battle it?”

“Sit down, hold hands and talk about our differences and problems. That always works. Look how successful the UN is.”

“They don't hold hands, they sit on their hands, but that was a good comment.”

“"nothing will ever change their minds but brute force" -- Strat

Hey, that sounds a LOT like what them people used to say about blacks, now doesn't it.

See, this is what is wrong with the world. Stupid friggin' testosterone ladden b.s. The only way to cure the problem is to STOMP THEM OUT. Jesus. I am surprised we aren't extinct as a race already. I suppose we would be if everyone had a mindset like that. And with Georgie in office, who knows?”

“I don't have the magic bullet that will end Terrorism, either, Mutt. What I'm railing against is using the pretext of terrorism to launch a pre-planned invasion of a ME country. It should be obvious that our invasion of Iraq has done little, if anything, to make the world safer from terror.

If it wasn't about Terror, and it wasn't about WMD (as in Iraq being a direct threat to the US or its allies), and it CERTAINLY wasn't about humanitarian efforts, what's left?”

“I think it was about getting antiquities onto E-Bay!”

“Imagine Iraq's biggest export was grain...”

“It should be obvious that our invasion of Iraq has done little, if anything, to make the world safer from terror.

Well that remains to be seen. It's a little naive to expect one military operation to result in immediate cessation of terrorist operations. In fact, just the opposite can be expected to happen. As I've argued, AQ must show that it still exists and is robust. The fact that they seem incapable of launching operations of 9/11 scale says a lot to me.

I still contend that the way to reduce terrorism is to gain the cooperation of nations. If not by diplomacy, then by force. Deny the terrorists territory and money, and they will whither. They'll go underground where they'll be much less of a threat. It seems as though the anti-Iraq-war crowd believes that the *only* strategy the US is engaged in is pre-emptive strikes against sovereign nations, which is absurd. I'd much rather the US do what it has been doing rather than just throwing its hands up and doing nothing.”

“Really, Mutt? I'd rather the U.S. concentrate its efforts on bringing the rest of the world into the fold. Why not engage the UN to create a body with some teeth? How about establish a military presence within the U.N. that would direct this "army" to handle areas that have problems with terrorism? We have heard nothing of the kind from the current administration.”

“I never said nothing should have been done, Mutt. I said the Invasion of Iraq was extraneous to our fight against terrorist networks.”

“ said the Invasion of Iraq was extraneous to our fight against terrorist networks

Which is demonstrably false.”

“Why not engage the UN to create a body with some teeth?

Because in the UN every petty dictator gets a vote.”

“Poor poor Phagrus!”

“Which is demonstrably false.


Only if one accepts a number of premises:

1. Iraq as a nation will keep a government that is friendly to the US.

2. Governmental cooperation in the ME is more than just a show to appease the US.

3. Tracking terror funds is possible and effective in ME countries.

4. There are no countries outside the ME that act as a base for terror groups operating in the ME.

These are all "wait and see" type items, but in looking at the motivations for invading Iraq, one has to examine the the current administration's track record. I believe that makes the idea that we invaded Iraq because of international terror absurd.”

“Why not engage the UN to create a body with some teeth?"
~RM

Why the redundancy - why reinvent the wheel?
We - the US - already have the teeth.”

“Phagrus

How do you know that their are no countries outside the ME that act as a base for terror groups. The time of passivism is over! You hate the fact that Bush in office and we are making progress. Get over it! Your "revolution" is over, Mr. Phagrus! Condolences! The hippies have lost!”

“Wow, brilliant.

Reread my post above, and tell me where I said I believed there were no countries outside the middle east acting as bases for terror. Read it carefully this time. Sound out the vowels if you need to.”

“Call this progress? You the sucka...

Published on Friday, May 16, 2003 by the lndependent/UK
Fallout of America's Vain Hunt for WMD Confined to Embarrassment
by Rupert Cornwell in Washington

The continuing failure to discover any evidence of Iraq's alleged chemical, germ and nuclear weapons, more than a month after the fall of Baghdad, is thus far a very minor embarrassment for the Bush administration – and probably one which will grow only if order collapses completely and there is an uprising against US military occupiers.

Unlike Britain, complaints here at the failure to find the illegal weapons – whose existence was the main justification for war – has been mainly confined to liberal columnists and editorials in liberal newspapers.

All but forgotten are the bloodcurdling pre-war assertions of top Bush officials, among them Vice-President Dick Cheney's claim that Iraq had "reconstituted" its nuclear program, and the President's warning that Iraqi drones, launched from ships in the Atlantic, could spray US cities with biological agents.

Instead the justification has shifted from the weapons threat to the humanitarian benefits of having removed a brutal regime. The worry in the US is not about the absence of a smoking WMD gun – but that Iraq will descend into anarchy. This week the US military command blamed escalating street violence not on the inability of the occupiers to guarantee basic services, but on "regime elements" made up of Baath party diehards who are sabotaging US-led efforts to restore infrastructure.

The mood is plain in the polls. Yes, Mr Bush probably did overestimate the quantities of non-conventional weapons held by Saddam Hussein's regime, 49 per cent of respondents in a New York Times/ CBS poll said, compared with 29 per cent who said they were about right and 12 per cent who continue to insist – in the face of all the evidence – that they were too little.

Even so, more than half thought the war will have been worth it, even if no germ, chemical and nuclear weapons are found, and Saddam himself is not captured or killed. The harrowing discovery this week of mass graves near Baghdad is unlikely to change these feelings.

In short, complaints here are unlikely to become as vocal as in Britain. The difference in Britain reflects much greater support for the war in the US, from the moment Congress gave Mr Bush carte blanche to use force last November, even before United Nations weapons inspectors returned and turned up nothing.

Inconveniences such as the forged documents purporting to show Iraq had bought uranium ore from Niger, and claims that intelligence analysts were forced to stretch facts to fit the theories of superiors at the White House, Pentagon and Vice-President's office, are simply brushed aside.

None the less, doubts are surfacing. Officially, the Pentagon line is that Iraq is a large country and that "we never expected to find weapons quickly." But in the end they would be found.

That does not square with what US investigators are being told by Iraqi scientists – who no longer have any reason to lie – that the weapons programs were shut down several years ago. Nor does it square with what US commanders are learning for themselves.

"We came to bear country, we came loaded for bear and we found out the bear wasn't here," said Colonel Richard McPhee, a member of Task Force 75, which went in with US troops to find and display the hidden WMD. Force 75 will be pulled out of Iraq next month.

Privately, US officials concede the best they may come up with is evidence of a program which once existed, such as the two facilities now being examined by US technicians, alleged to have been mobile laboratories. And unless chaos on the ground grows to the point of invalidating military victory, that may be where the weapons mystery vanishes into the desert sands.”

“And that has what to do with the war's main purpose: change the dynamics of the Middle East, to insert American leverage, and to gain/force/blackmail cooperation from terrorist-harboring countries?”

“It seems to me the only people who truly believed the WMD propaganda were the liberals and the hard-core bush supporters.”

“And that has what to do with the war's main purpose: change the dynamics of the Middle East, to insert American leverage, and to gain/force/blackmail cooperation from terrorist-harboring countries?

I agree with that, except for the "terrorist-harboring" part. I think that is inconsequential to the Bush administration. Evidence of terror would be just a nice pretext for the other points, which is what I've been arguing the whole time. I'm not arguing that this move will have NO impact on terror. I'm arguing that it wasn't the reason for invading. I'm arguing that the Bush administration used terror and WMD to facilitate their pre-planned invasion of Iraq.

If you're counting me among the liberals that believed the WMD propaganda, please see practically every political post I've made since before we invaded. I'd love to see the Bush administration have to fess up to THE FACT THAT IT IS PROPAGANDA.

I hope I have made myself clear this time.”

“Then I think we agree to some extent. I never did agree with Bush's timing on Iraq. I think there were other more pressing issues to contend with - there still are. I think Bush figured he'd try to ensure his re-election with this little war.”

“Mutt:

BS. Your statement makes no sense. Why would liberals believe there were WMD in the ME without proof? Proof was what the minority were clamoring for before we got into this mess. And instead we got the trust us routine. 70 percent of the stupid US public bought that rhetoric hook, line, and sinker.

And with their 30 second attention spans, they don't really give a #&%!$ that they were completely lied to and pushed around by Commander-in-Dumbass and his legion of crooks.

Ugh.”

“In oter words, Mutt, you believe, as I do that Bush is trying to use the events of 9/11 as a pretext for political gain.”

“I think that's definitely a part of it. However, it's impossible, imo, to summarily dismiss the terrorist aspect of his foreign policy, when apparently we've had and are continuing to have some success.”

“Before the war I demanded proof and still have none. If congress can spend several million to determine if clinton got blown I think they should be just as generous determining if Bush LIED.(will ken Starr please report..)

As to the terrorism, When you realise that it is our interferance in ME affairs that generated groups like Al-Qeada in the first place, It is strange that anyone can believe more interferance will improve the situation.

Allowing every petty dictator a vote in the UN was very democratic of us, But I for one dont want to become the worlds police men, The US has enough problems at home to deal with.

It is arrogance to believe that the US has the knowledge or the right to determine what the ME does. We have failed in both Iran and Iraq in the past and are failing once again in Iraq. Chaos reigns in baghdad now and will only grow worse as conditions deteriorate.

Bush, however, says what he means, and means what he says."
gojo

And it worries me to no end. We are no longer a peacefull democracy and are quickly becoming war driven police state.”

“See, this is what is wrong with the world. Stupid friggin' testosterone ladden b.s. The only way to cure the problem is to STOMP THEM OUT. Jesus. I am surprised we aren't extinct as a race already. I suppose we would be if everyone had a mindset like that. And with Georgie in office, who knows?"
roseymonster


why do you think i'm stupid? if a man told you he was going to kill you, and he first killed your friends, would you try to reason with him? they hate you rosey. they will most definately never ever stop untill they are dead or we are all dead. whether that comes in a homicide bombing or from a US soldier. they want you dead. and you call me stupid for wanting to defend myself? if everyone thought like you, who would rule us? tyrants and dictators, that's who.


dead. you and your family and friends and neighbnors and democrats and republicans and libertarians. all of you will die by their hand unless you fight back. call me a monstor if you want. call me thoughtless, paranoid, barbaric. doesn't matter because your enimies will still be trying to kill you. this isn't a video game. this is survival of civilization itself. they breakdown of all order.


kill the jews, convert the Christians and kill them if they won't convert. that's their idealogy. reason with that? it is impossible to reason with someone who has no value of innocent human life. you can not appel to their good will, because their only will is to snuff you and me out.

wouldn't it be nice if we had no problems? yeah, it would. but guess what.......we do. there is a cancer in the world. you are trying to put a bandaid on it and hope it goes away. you have to cut the cancer out or it will destroy the whole body.....



"Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of
character."

Albert Einstein”

“phaed, please keep your lil fanticies of having a bigger weenie to yourself......”

“let's take a vote among all military past and present......i bet the pick bush”