The Iraq / war on terror thread

[pilferk]

hmmm...he lies about a quote, I comment on the person he credits the quote to and not on its content, he then says I've beeen Hannitized??

How was that well played?? Again, you don't even know when you have won a reatrded little game.? ?

Ummmm...that's rather the point.  Rather than READ the quote, you just discounted it out of hand...and it bit you in the ass.

[SLCPUNK]

       
Im glad you think that, because those statements were actually made by Senator John Warner, Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee...

So I guess Ted Kennedy isnt the most biased guy around...Congratulations on taking the bait - youve been Hannitized. 

hahaha!!!!!

Brilliant!!!

And then his response "Without quoting a quack"

 

Very good, very good indeed!

[Charity Case]

If he had quote someone other than a moron I would have read the wuote and commented on it.? I wouldn't comment on a quote by Charlie Manson either.? Next time, don't lie about it, and you'll get a response.? You don't expect anyone to actually care about, let a lone read anything quoted by Ted Kennedy do you?

As far as the quote goes....he's wrong IMO.  I think the use of propaganda is critical to our success there.  Doesn't matter that he is a republican or a democrat....he's still wrong.  The only thing that matters is that he is not a moron like kennedy.

[pilferk]

If he had quote someone other than a moron I would have read the wuote and commented on it.? I wouldn't comment on a quote by Charlie Manson either.? Next time, don't lie about it, and you'll get a response.? You don't expect anyone to actually care about, let a lone read anything quoted by Ted Kennedy do you?

You don't actually expect anyone to care about, let alone read, anything quoted from Fox news, do you?

That's a real nice double standard you're setting up, oh closed minded one.

[Charity Case]

If he had quote someone other than a moron I would have read the wuote and commented on it.? I wouldn't comment on a quote by Charlie Manson either.? Next time, don't lie about it, and you'll get a response.? You don't expect anyone to actually care about, let a lone read anything quoted by Ted Kennedy do you?

You don't actually expect anyone to care about, let alone read, anything quoted from Fox news, do you?

That's a real nice double standard you're setting up, oh closed minded one.

Please show me where I have quoted Fox News.  I may have, but I certainly don't remember doing so.

[SLCPUNK]

Couple things.  First off, stop "making up" what we think. 

Thankyou.

I get tired of this bullshit game you guys ALL PLAY. You create these things "we would do" or "bet you'd do" over and over. So childish. D has just joined your little club recently and now he is telling me all the websites I read in my spare time and use as my quotes (which of course is false). This all really dances around one thing: lying. It isn't a lie in the true sense of the word, but you are creating something that is false, although not directly.

What do you expect from a group of racist liars?

[pilferk]

If he had quote someone other than a moron I would have read the wuote and commented on it.? I wouldn't comment on a quote by Charlie Manson either.? Next time, don't lie about it, and you'll get a response.? You don't expect anyone to actually care about, let a lone read anything quoted by Ted Kennedy do you?

You don't actually expect anyone to care about, let alone read, anything quoted from Fox news, do you?

That's a real nice double standard you're setting up, oh closed minded one.

Please show me where I have quoted Fox News.? I may have, but I certainly don't remember doing so.

Whether you've quoted it or not is irrelevant.? "You've" taken "us" to task for discounting information from conservative sites before, but yet, you just did the same thing.

[SLCPUNK]

Please show me where I have quoted Fox News.  I may have, but I certainly don't remember doing so.

There goes that memory of yours again.....Always forgetting what we've told you, and asking again. Always remember (how you would like) things to be remembered (ie, bullshit you say.)

In reality, what you say, and what you claim to say, are worlds apart.

[Charity Case]

Please show me where I have quoted Fox News.? I may have, but I certainly don't remember doing so.

There goes that memory of yours again.....Always forgetting what we've told you, and asking again. Always remember (how you would like) things to be remembered (ie, bullshit you say.)

In reality, what you say, and what you claim to say, are worlds apart.

I don't think I've quoted Fox News here, ever.? You seem like you are about to cry.? I can almost feel it through the screen.? Might be time to run to the admin section and ask jarmo to ban me.? ?

In any event, while this is typically fun, it is getting old tonight listening to how perfect you all are and how absolutely horrible I am.  As much fun as that is, I think it may be time for me to hit the sack.

[pilferk]

I don't think I've quoted Fox News here, ever.? You seem like you are about to cry.? I can almost feel it through the screen.? Might be time to run to the admin section and ask jarmo to ban me.? ?

Boy, you're bad at reading people.....

Let's see if I'm getting this right:

I'll betcha SLC is sitting as his monitor, grinning gleefully, chuckling.

Lets see if I'm right....

[Booker Floyd]

As for Kennedy, my statement stands. ?He's a fucking moron. ?I had no idea that you guys would lie about a quote. ?I didn't even comment on the content of the quote, only on the person being quoted. ?So I'm not sure how you think I was baited into anything.? If I comment on the content of the quote, then you may have a point.? Pretty childish though. ?Congrats, you are now truly a stereotype. ?

Allow me to explain why youve been Hannitized...

Sean Hannity likes to read off a "Republican"s quotes to guests that have opposing viewpoints, only to reveal that they were actually a Democrats. ?

You look foolish for a couple reasons:

1. You accused "libs" of making this an issue and insulted them for being wimps. ?The call for an investigation is being headed by a Republican.

2. You asked what the problem with this kind of propaganda is, I provided a senators answer. ?The fact that you supposedly didnt read it because it was Kennedys (or simply have no substantial argument against it) says a lot about you and your own bias, doesnt it? ?It also says something about your own information gathering and processing.

3. You call me a stereotype when I actually used Sean Hannitys signature routine...so am I a Republican stereotype? ?I think its only right that you now hold Hannity accountable for what you think is "childish", "retarded" game.

4. The smiley face isnt fooling anyone. ?

don't lie about it, and you'll get a response

So the train of thought here is you didnt respond because it was a lie? ?Hmm...

I had no idea that you guys would lie about a quote

You should probably hang it up at this point. ?Youve locked yourself in a very confused, biased box.

[SLCPUNK]

I don't think I've quoted Fox News here, ever.  You seem like you are about to cry.  I can almost feel it through the screen.  Might be time to run to the admin section and ask jarmo to ban me.   

Boy, you're bad at reading people.....

Let's see if I'm getting this right:

I'll betcha SLC is sitting as his monitor, grinning gleefully, chuckling.

Lets see if I'm right....

haha, I've been laughing non stop since I saw Hannity's sorry ass pop up in this thread........

[Booker Floyd]

I don't think I've quoted Fox News here, ever.? You seem like you are about to cry.? I can almost feel it through the screen.? Might be time to run to the admin section and ask jarmo to ban me.? ?

Ah...and for the evenings final(?) display of blatant hypocrisy...

What about Pilferks quote even remotely suggested, for one second, that he was in any way upset?  Sounds to me like you might be projecting a bit, and perhaps felt "his" urge to cry a little better than youre letting on.  Why would I say this?  Aside from solid intuition...

In any event, while this is typically fun, it is getting old tonight listening to how perfect you all are and how absolutely horrible I am.? As much fun as that is, I think it may be time for me to hit the sack.

Dropping the issue, complaining about how this isnt fun anymore, and mock self-pity?  Yeah, maybe you should hit the sack. 

[RichardNixon]

And all the while there are still no WMDs to be found...

[pilferk]

Ah...and for the evenings final(?) display of blatant hypocrisy...

What about Pilferks quote even remotely suggested, for one second, that he was in any way upset?? Sounds to me like you might be projecting a bit, and perhaps felt "his" urge to cry a little better than youre letting on.? Why would I say this?? Aside from solid intuition...

Wait, he was talking to ME? ?You think? ?Well, allow me to assuage Charity's concern, just in case. ?I'm about as far from "crying" on the emotion scale as Nixon was to "honest" on the honesty scale (no offense to our resident poster RichardNixon!).

[SLCPUNK]

And all the while there are still no WMDs to be found...

That's the way they became..............

[RichardNixon]

Ok, new topic that relates to Iraq:

Don't you think it's funny how self-righteous the Republicans got when they impeached Clinton for misleading the public about getting a blow job? Yet now don't seem to care that Bush/Cheney misled the public about "Mushroom Clouds" and a link between Bin Laden and Iraq?

Clinton got impeached for something far smaller than invading a sovereign country which has led to the deaths of thousands of people. If the congress had a sense of decency or justice, Bush and Darth Cheney would be impeached, removed from office and go to jail.

[Booker Floyd]

Wait, he was talking to ME? ?

My mistake...I read your response first, and then the original quote (I got a "New Message" warning during a reply) and confused the two of you. ?So replace "Pilferk" with "SLCPunk." ?

[SLCPUNK]

Ok, new topic that relates to Iraq:

Don't you think it's funny how self-righteous the Republicans got when they impeached Clinton for misleading the public about getting a blow job? Yet now don't seem to care that Bush/Cheney misled the public about "Mushroom Clouds" and a link between Bin Laden and Iraq?

Clinton got impeached for something far smaller than invading a sovereign country which has led to the deaths of thousands of people. If the congress had a sense of decency or justice, Bush and Darth Cheney would be impeached, removed from office and go to jail.

The motherload of doublespeak.


Oh but wait! The argument here is that he lied under oath. That is what he got impeached for.  Never mind the millions of dollars (right and left money) that was wasted to investigate his personal life, then get him in the hot spot (where any man) would lie about cheating on his wife.

[Booker Floyd]

Odom: Want stability in the Middle East? Get out of Iraq!
COMMENTARY | November 11, 2005

In his last piece for NiemanWatchdog.org, retired Gen. William Odom argued that all the terrible things the Bush administration says would happen if we pulled our troops out of Iraq are happening already. In a new postscript, Odom writes that the converse is true as well: Bush says he wants to bring democracy and stability to the greater Middle East -- but in fact the only way to achieve that goal is to get out of Iraq now.

By William E. Odom
diane@hudson.org

As I have watched the reactions to my earlier piece on NiemanWatchdog.org, "What?s wrong with cutting and running??, I recognize that one critical point does not come through to many readers. The problem may stem from the words "cut and run" in the title. In the minds of some, that seems to imply leaving the region for good.? My argument is fundamentally different.

I believe that stabilizing the region from the Eastern Mediterranean to Afghanistan is very much an American interest, one we share with all our allies as well as with several other countries, especially, China, Russia, and India.

The ?Global Balkans?

Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski has called this region the "global Balkans," a name that recalls the role of the European Balkans during two or three decades leading up to the outbreak of World War I.? By themselves the Balkan countries were not all that important. Yet several great powers, especially Russia and Austria, were jockeying for strategic advantages there as they anticipated the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and competition for control of the straits leading from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean. Britain and France wanted neither Russia nor Austria to dominate; and Germany, although uninterested in the Balkans, was allied to Austria. From a strategic viewpoint, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914 was unimportant, but it set in motion actions that soon brought all of the major powers in Europe to war. Four empires collapsed, and the doors were opened to the Communists in Russia and the Nazis in Germany as a result. Brzezinski's point today is that the Middle East and Southwest Asia have precisely that kind of potential for catalyzing wars among the major powers of the world today, although nothing in the region objectively merits such wars.?

Thus Brzezinski calls for the United States to lead the states of Europe plus Russia, Japan, and China in a cooperative approach to stabilizing this region so that it cannot spark conflicts among them. As he rightly argues, the task of stabilization is beyond the power of the United States alone. With allies, however, it can manage the challenge.

A Missed Opportunity

After al Qaeda's attacks in the United States, the European members of NATO invoked Article Five of the North Atlantic Treaty, meaning that they considered the attack on the United States as an attack on them all. Article Five had never been invoked before. Moreover, over 90 countries worldwide joined one or more of five separate coalitions to support the U.S. war against al Qaeda.? Seldom has the United States had so much international support.? It was a most propitious time, therefore, for dealing with "the Global Balkans" in precisely the way Brzezinski suggested.?

Over the next year and a half, however, in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, many neoconservatives, both inside and outside the administration, disparaged NATO and other US allies as unnecessary for "transforming the Middle East."? Because the United States is a superpower, they insisted, it could handle this task alone.? Accordingly, we witnessed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld?s team and some officials in the State Department and the White House (especially in the Vice President's office) gratuitously and repeatedly? insult the Europeans, dismissing them as irrelevant.? The climax of this sustained campaign to discard our allies came in the UN Security Council struggle for a resolution to legitimize the invasion of Iraq in February-March 2003.

From that time on, we have seen most of our allies stand aside and engage in Schadenfreude over our painful bog-down in Iraq.? Winston Churchill's glib observation, "the only thing worse that having allies is having none," was once again vindicated.?