From the AP, April 25, 2012....And then Rabel came right back and said:
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — NATO says that two service members have been killed in separate attacks in southern Afghanistan, while two others have died of non-battle injuries.Barack Obama was their Commander-in-Chief.
The coalition said in statements that one service member was killed by an improvised explosive device Wednesday and another by a similar weapon on Tuesday....
So far this month, 31 coalition members have died in Afghanistan, bringing the year's toll to 122."
Fuck him.
That's his job right there.Now, that's a very harsh way to talk about Obama, but it's the way people talked about George Bush all the time. Remember how Bush was savaged for displaying a capacity for enjoying himself when Americans were fighting and dying?
Fuck him and fuck his Goddamn comedy act.
That much criticized performance occurred in 2002. A year later, after he received news of war deaths while golfing, Bush gave up golf:
“I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander-in-chief playing golf... I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong message."Does a slow jam with Jimmy Fallon send the wrong message? Or do we not think about the mom whose son may have recently died anymore? (Obama has no Cindy Sheehan
Why is Obama immune from the criticism that normally befalls a President? Back in 2008, running for President, Obama pushed back the press one time with "Why is it that I can't just enjoy my waffle?"
It's like that was a really hard question — why is it that he can't just enjoy his waffle... and his multiple vacations and his golf and his rock concerts in the White House and his slow jam with Jimmy Fallon?
The answer is: Because you have a job. You applied for it. We hired you. Make us believe you're doing it.
You know, a couple days ago, Rush Limbaugh said something that sounded outlandish to me at the time:
There's a lot of mythology out there still today about Obama and his strengths and how there hasn't been any fallout from the dismal record that he has amassed. None of this is true. They're in trouble. They're in deep trouble. You basically have David Plouffe, who's the president, you got Axelrod who's the chief of staff and Obama's out playing golf. Obama... Not quite. Obama's out doing the fundraising, but David Plouffe is the acting president, Axelrod's chief adviser, and Obama's out playing golf. Obama basically has a nine a.m. to four p.m. day. It's these other guys that are formulating policy, doing all this other stuff. He knows what's going on, don't misunderstand, and he's guiding and influencing it.Plouffe is the acting President?! That sounded outlandish. But look around. Obama performs 5 minutes of a musically sexualized speech about students and... it's wearing down my sense of the outlandish.
I'm not saying Obama's disengaged, doesn't know what's going on and he's a puppet. Don't misunderstand. Not saying that at all. But he's not known as a hard worker. He's not known as somebody who gets in there early and stays late....
While David Plouffe is the president, Axelrod's the chief of staff, Obama's out raising money. After his campaign stop in North Carolina today, he's going on his comedy tour. He'll be appearing on the Jimmy Fallon show and then with Jimmy Kimmel before being roasted at the White House Correspondents Dinner this weekend....
Posts
236 comments:
1 – 200 of 236 Newer› Newest»And I think people are going to fall for him again.
Sadly.
I don't think there's much concern about who's doing the actual work, thinking that the replacement would be no worse and might be better.
Obama has gotten doofus status. People who are calling him an asshole are wrong. Doofus trumps asshole.
What he says has too many lies too obviously for too long.
Outlandish is rooted in the concept of "foreign"
Does the guy ever go to work and sit at his desk?
I think that is actually how Obama sees himself - as the symbolic frontman of a movement - and the actual work will be done by the worker bees.
Obama is good on the war on terror, though, forgetting undermining it with pullout dates. Dronewise good.
Keep them watching their backs instead of organizing.
Probably somebody explained it to him.
I think he and Michelle is also the most extravagant couple we have ever had in the White House.
I just don't remember anything like this ever before.
My impression regarding the first path of your post:
Its because O is a self centered campaigner, and W is a decent human being comfortable in his own skin. This was one of his weaknesses as a politician since he rarely felt he had to answer his critics and sell his policies. Many including you have noted this, but it left the field wide open to the chimpymchitler crowd and the MSM to set the narrative.
His whole life has been like this.
He's a narcissist who doesn't like to work very hard. He's never had a real job, one where getting fired was an actual possibility. He's been able to bully and threaten (although others to that for him as well).
And forever he's been told he's great, doing next to nothing, so why stop now?
And a lot of people seem to like that about him.
Bush + golf = Evil
Obama + golf = Cool
I believe that Barry is clearly in way over his head. Too much of the Presidency involves things he does not want to do.
The dinosaur media is covering up and/or advocating for his reelection. They need to file the paper work to indicate payment in kind for the political campaign work. It seems way to obvious to be denied.
He's just not that smart.
I think Obama is more gauche than sinister.
I do love Bush's "now watch this drive" line. It shows what a no nonsense, badass commander in chief he was.
Obama performs 5 minutes of a musically sexualized speech about students and... it's wearing down my sense of the outlandish.
Good - it sounds like we're finally getting on the same page again,...
When things are going well, no wars, economy rolling and markets expanding a President can occasionally do something light-hearted like Bill Clinton playing the sax on a late night TV show.
But when things are in the tank it makes a president look insincere and frivolous.
While David Plouffe is the president, Axelrod's the chief of staff, Obama's out raising money. After his campaign stop in North Carolina today, he's going on his comedy tour. He'll be appearing on the Jimmy Fallon show and then with Jimmy Kimmel before being roasted at the White House Correspondents Dinner this weekend....
Looks like Rush missed some of the details. Didn't Obama show up in Colorado that same day on his college campus tour?
All this and yet Obama says his campaign doesn't officially launch until May 5. Is he refunding the government for what are obviously campaign trips?
Ann Althouse said: Why is Obama immune from the criticism that normally befalls a President?
You already answered that on the previous thread, requoted here:
Who gives a damn...
Now I hope that plays out for the election as well, and his comical ass is retired just like Carter in his day.
It's almost like Obama's testing the press and mainstream commentariat to see how far "in the bag" they are for him.
Are they up to the challenge?
Why isn't anyone uncomfortable with Jimmy Fallon in those Big Bank Capitalist advertisements on the TV? Isn't that major prog blasphemy and hypocrisy?
Why isn't anyone uncomfortable with Jimmy Fallon in those Big Bank Capitalist advertisements on the TV? Isn't that major prog blasphemy and hypocrisy?
Naw. In one of them he says he's "gonna make it rain up in here" so that gave him street cred.
Obama's appearance on Fallon's show arguably violated campaign finance laws, which shows both the ludicrousness of the laws and Obama's contempt for them.
Isn't that major prog blasphemy ...
Nope, for the reason Scott M said, plus in that advertisement, he's offering "free money" ... otherwise known as "other people's money" ... a progressive tenant.
Every move Obama makes is for the glory of Obama.
BTW, anyone else catch the stories finally trickling out about Obama's arrogance? He told people he could to any job in his campaign but chooses not to, that he's a better speechwriter than anyone, but he chooses to have speechwriters. From New York magazine:
"The president’s friend and adviser Valerie Jarrett sometimes pointed out that not only had he never managed an operation, he’d never really had a nine-to-five job in his life. Obama didn’t know what he didn’t know, yet his self-confidence was so stratospheric that once, in the context of thinking about Emanuel’s replacement, he remarked in all seriousness, “You know, I’d make a good chief of staff.”"
Why is Obama immune from the criticism that normally befalls a President?
An answer from the Zimmerman tread is more apropos.
"You applied for it. We hired you."
With no education records, no experience, and no work ethic. But we were concerned the other guy might be unpredictable after knowing him for decades in complete detail.
Admittedly, McCain was such a bad choice for a GOP candidate that even irresponsibly flipping a coin had it's virtue.
W. is such a superior man, in virtually every way.
"You applied for it. We hired you."
Who's we, kemosabe?
Outlandish is rooted in the concept of "foreign"
Which, if yesterdays oral is any guide, the Obama adm is doggedly trying to render it meaningless.
Chief Justice Roberts said the state law merely requires that the federal government be informed of immigration violations and leaves enforcement decisions to it. “It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who is here illegally and who’s not,” he said....
Good catch chicklit.
The commenters today seem to be judging Obama as if he is a President. But Obama and his Party know that he is the temporary ruler over our transition from a Constitutional Republic to a conquered Province. The Congress and the SCOTUS must obey the Ruler Obama or he will simply issue decrees out of the EPA, the TSA, and the FDA.
As for a so called war in Afghanistan, that occupation has been a bad political joke using American military lives as pawns for 8 years now. Withdrawing from that place is commonsense 8 years too late.
The necessary war is for the Congress and the SCOTUS to step up and and resist Obama's silent coup.
All he knows is how to campaign, so he does that. It makes his feel like a competent, morally superior grownup. Governing? Not so much.
As I've said, he's the first meta president. It's all about the discourse of Me, The First African American Left Wing President and My impact upon history.
I wonder if Rabel had similar comments for Bush when he joked about the search for WMDs in Iraq during the annual Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner in 2004 while our troops were fighting and dying in Iraq?
The law review president who never wrote a law review article. But it's (still) Obama's moment. History will decide what he did with it.
On the other hand, Romney can't say hello without lying. What a cynical campaign.
Bush: a lightweight given way too much responsibility. Tragic.
Rush is on the monwey here. Plouffe is doing what Dick Morris did in the middle 4 years of Willie's administration.
Interesting how all these sociopathic Demo empty suits follow a pattern.
harrogate said...
I do love Bush's "now watch this drive" line. It shows what a no nonsense, badass commander in chief he was.
Smartass beclowns himself.
Bush was a badass.
He got Bin Laden.
PS Very droll, chick, but, in mixing languages, you're wrong.
The Latins would say Dictator Zero is very sinister.
Obama's "performance" on Fallon was not comedy, it was merely a campaign speech built into a song. He knew his audience of college students would be in favor of his message about not allowing student loan interest rates to double. He spoke his point, letting others sing about it, and he looked stiff and uncomfortable doing so. That's all that happened. Obama has never been, nor will he ever be, "cool."
Let's stop attacking Obama because he is supposedly "cool" or "lazy." Those things don't matter - unless you are racist - and they aren't even demonstrably true. The only thing that matters, and is undeniable, is that Obama has been an ineffective President and should not be reelected. (Whether he is cool enough or works hard enough is irrelevant at this point.)
All of this was obvious to anybody willing to look dispassionately before the last election. L. Frank Baum would be pleased.
I predict that Michelle will be stocking up on those Free Luxury Vacations in November, December and January.
Let me add one item to the list of things Barry has gotten a pass on while Bush did not.
Remember the rancorous accusations about a lack of idealogical diversity in the Bush admin? All his top people were rabid right-wingers, if the NYT and others were to be believed. Where was the BALANCE? WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE...PLEASE! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?
So Barry practically fills his staff and cabinet with communists; at least like-minded people who were weaned on the fantastic exploits of the Weathermen, Che Guavara and other Socialist Justice League superheroes.
The response from the supposedly-adversarial press? Nary a word. Crickets.
Does anyone think there is one scintilla of conservative thought in the WH?
Keystone said...
Does the guy ever go to work and sit at his desk?
Well, he goes in the Oval office and puts his feet on the furniture. Does that count?
Rush is precisely correct. He defines his job as getting reelected. Others may have a different job description.
The voters will decide in November, but meanwhile we should not expect Obama to have a single concern other than his own reelection. It's who he is.
Joseph Schmoe said...
Let me add one item to the list of things Barry has gotten a pass on while Bush did not.
Got another.
Where's Keith Ubermoronn yelling, "Shut. The Hell. Up."?
I swear, NASCAR drivers don't turn as hard left as the Obama admin does.
And he nominated czars, for chrissakes. There should be no 'czars' in a democratic, constitutional republic. Yeah, the practice probably predates Obama, but I hate it anyways. The term implies some sort of repressive, unbridled authority with no oversight and accountability to no one. Note that much of the damage in this country, in terms of energy, industrial, and economic policy, have been decreed by these 'czars'. End the reign of the 'czars'.
Rush is precisely correct. He defines his job as getting reelected.
If you had Putin waiting on you to have more flexibility after November 6th 2012, you would focus on re-election too. Those KGB types can be a real bitch.
Hagar said...
I think he and Michelle is also the most extravagant couple we have ever had in the White House.
I just don't remember anything like this ever before.
Kennedy and Nixon come to mind. Clinton if you think that Oval Office blow jobs are extravagant.
"... I wonder if Rabel had similar comments for Bush when he joked about the search for WMDs in Iraq during the annual Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner in 2004 while our troops were fighting and dying in Iraq?..."
Dunno but your side certainly did. Perhaps Rabel is being fair and balanced showing that Obama is just as clueless and insensitive as Bush.
"... Clinton if you think that Oval Office blow jobs are extravagant..."
Hell I think getting one in the backseat of a Pinto is extravagent.
Hell I think getting one in the backseat of a Pinto is extravagent.
There's no such thing as a bad pizza.
Hoosier Daddy said...
“Perhaps Rabel is being fair and balanced showing that Obama is just as clueless and insensitive as Bush.”
So Bush was in fact clueless about the war in Iraq?
Ahem.
I apologize for the vulgarity, which I generally try to avoid. But it was late and I had been watching the American troops sacrifice their lives on the Military Channel, so the President's belittling of his office and the attendant harm that does to the country and those who serve hit a nerve.
This might be a good time to post a link to an interesting assessment of Obama's character from April 2007.
It comes from an anti-Zionist Jewish writer and is interesting in two ways.
One, it matches my own read on Obama, the man, and self-validation in always interesting.
Two, I've never seen it before. Which is interesting when you consider that the writer is generally sympathetic to Obama and it could have been used against him by people on the right. Maybe I just missed it.
Anyway, here's the money quote:
"My own sense is that other individuals don't fully register emotionally in Obama's consciousness, they're expendable, he's arrogant, lacks empathy."
And the link:
Obama's Dark Side
36fsfiend said...
Perhaps Rabel is being fair and balanced showing that Obama is just as clueless and insensitive as Bush.
So Bush was in fact clueless about the war in Iraq?
No, all Hoosier was saying was that Dubya wanted to be re-elected, too.
But the Lefties can't for an instant let the idea that Dubya knew what he was doing - and Zero doesn't - stand.
But the truth always comes out.
Rabel said...
“I apologize for the vulgarity, which I generally try to avoid. But it was late and I had been watching the American troops sacrifice their lives on the Military Channel, so the President's belittling of his office and the attendant harm that does to the country and those who serve hit a nerve.”
So do have a similar position towards Bush regarding his joke about the search for WMDs in Iraq during the annual Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner in 2004 while our troops were fighting and dying in Iraq?
That was a primary reason for sending those troops over there to fight and die. To find those WMDs that were supposedly a threat to us.
Correct publication date of the article to April, 2008.
Doesn't this criticism apply equally to Romney? After all, he is running for President. Shouldn't he be held to the same standard of sensitivity, so that we can see what kind of president he might be?
He shut down an investment bank for a day to search for a missing girl.
He ministered to members of his congregation for years.
Obama...sat in a bigoted church and had his daughters baptized by a virulent racist.
There isn't even a comparison here.
edutcher said...
“No, all Hoosier was saying was that Dubya wanted to be re-elected, too.”
So joking about our troops fighting and dying is a way to get reelected?
Did you happen to vote for Bush in 2004?
I wonder if Rabel had similar comments for Bush when he joked about the search for WMDs in Iraq during the annual Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner in 2004 while our troops were fighting and dying in Iraq?
Why would he?
The Bush administration was right about WMD in Iraq, lefty delusions to the contrary.
But "the search" was self-deprecating humor. Have we ever seen that sort of humility from Obama?
But, please: continue repeating disproven lefty canards. They give constant reminders about the utter lack of seriousness from your side of the political spectrum.
leslyn said...
“I see where you're going, but Bush wasn't clueless about Iraq . He knew all about the WMDs that weren't there.”
How are you so certain?
Nathan Alexander said...
“The Bush administration was right about WMD in Iraq, lefty delusions to the contrary.”
Really? Did you listen to any of the exist interviews he gave?
“But "the search" was self-deprecating humor. Have we ever seen that sort of humility from Obama?”
Actually, I think Bush was telling us all something with his joke. That he didn’t believe his own BS about WMDs in Iraq.
PS Very droll, chick, but, in mixing languages, you're wrong.
You are correct, edutcher. How very adroit of you!
Does a slow jam with Jimmy Fallon send the wrong message?
Yes it does, but you have to wonder why he would do it. I'm thinking that Obama has received the "Pat Caddell" moment that Jimmy Carter received about 4 days before the 1980 election (shorthand version: "It's over"), and he is trying things in desperation. Yes, this far out from the election date. Some analysis of the fundamentals in the re-election effort is revealing that it ain't gonna happen and Obama is in denial and is making some really bad, desperate choices.
How are you so certain?
Leslyn is certain because fiend always bangs the conundrum most loudly.
Fiend is essentially just a word game to be played.
leslyn,
Thank you for the link. I’ll include it with my reference on al-Janabi, the Downing Street memo and Joe Wilson.
Good one chick. But let me suggest that fiend/harro/freder is the word game in the newspaper you always ignore while working the crossword or doing the sudoku. Until out of sheer boredom you try it again only to be reminded why you ignored it in the first place.
"...Leslyn is certain because fiend always bangsthe conundrum most loudly..."
Well in a previous thread 36 was insistent that our air wars over Serbia and Libya were necessary and justified to our national interests.
You know, two countries that were not imminent threats, didn't attack us and were involved in a civil war.
I'm still laughing over that.
Hoosier Daddy,
The “imminent threat” of attack from WMDs was the major sell by the Bush Administration to go to war in Iraq which turned out to be false.
And if you cannot recognize what national interests were involved with the conflicts in Serbia and Libya, then I suggest you read up on those conflicts rather than laugh about the service of our armed forces.
Also, my question to you still stands, was Bush in fact clueless about the war in Iraq?
The “imminent threat” of attack from WMDs was the major sell by the Bush Administration to go to war in Iraq which turned out to be false.
So? The German threat of having the A-bomb turned out to be false too. Truman never apologized for that one.
Your point only means something if you assert that the Bush Administration knew with certainty that Saddam had no WMD's, at acertain point in time, and not that false information was relied upon.
As you said, "how are you so certain?"
"... And if you cannot recognize what national interests were involved with the conflicts in Serbia and Libya, then I suggest you read up on those conflicts rather than laugh about the service of our armed forces..."
Oh I have read about then 36, quite extensively in fact and the civil wars in Serbia and Libya were not a national security risk. Milosevic wasn't a threat to us, Ghadaffi wasn't a threat to us. You had two countries engaged in a civil war.
I was laughing at you, not our armed forces, you, who think that we had a national interest in those places but not Rwanda, or Sudan or Syria. Funny how regime change of ruthless dictators is quite a partisan matter for you.
chickenlittle,
The threat of the Germans having an A-bomb was not the reason for us entering WW II. There was no reason for Truman to apologize because he did not mislead us into that war.
I asked Leslyn how he/she was so sure about the assertion that Bush didn’t believe Iraq ever had WMDs just out of curiosity.
Dubya didn't mislead us into Iraq.
Tenet, maybe, but not Dubya.
The Lefties always have to lie. don't they?
No, all Hoosier was saying was that Dubya wanted to be re-elected, too.
So joking about our troops fighting and dying is a way to get reelected?
Did you happen to vote for Bush in 2004?
Spare me.
Lefties like fiend are still stuck on William Calley as the prototypical American serviceman.
And, yes, I'm proud to say I voted for Dubya.
fiend voted for Lurch, of course. Before he voted against him.
But the fact is, here, nothing POTUS does will be treated with legitimacy.
Bullshit. POTUS's actions have the force of law--I don't think anyone is denying that.
"... But the fact is, here, nothing POTUS does will be treated with legitimacy..."
Well it would enhance his crediblity if he knew what he was doing.
"I wish he'd had time to talk about the proposal to cut back on the school lunch program too."
Are our children obese or starving? I can never remember.
Hoosier Daddy said...
“Oh I have read about then 36, quite extensively in fact and the civil wars in Serbia and Libya were not a national security risk. Milosevic wasn't a threat to us, Ghadaffi wasn't a threat to us. You had two countries engaged in a civil war.”
You need to read up on the concept of national interests.
“I was laughing at you, not our armed forces, you, who think that we had a national interest in those places but not Rwanda, or Sudan or Syria. Funny how regime change of ruthless dictators is quite a partisan matter for you.”
Again, each situation is unique with its own set of circumstances. You simply cannot use a cookie cutter approach to every international situation. Why didn’t we take out Stalin and Mao who were both ruthless dictators and who each killed millions?
Also, still waiting for an answer to the question, was Bush in fact clueless about the war in Iraq?
"The threat of the Germans having an A-bomb was not the reason for us entering WW II. There was no reason for Truman to apologize because he did not mislead us into that war."
Some people are willfully blind to the larger picture.
What 2 countries border Iran?
What country is most likely to develop nuclear technology and the ability to deploy it?
(Sorry, North Korea, you're China's problem.)
Which country has vowed to wipe other countries off the map?
edutcher said...
“Dubya didn't mislead us into Iraq. Tenet, maybe, but not Dubya.”
Dubya was the man in charge, the Commander-in-Chief. He owns it.
“And, yes, I'm proud to say I voted for Dubya.”
Then what to you think about his joke regarding not finding WMDs and his misleading us into the war with Iraq? Do you believe as Rabel that he belittled his office and caused harm to the country and those who serve?
The threat of the Germans having an A-bomb was not the reason for us entering WW II.
I think you're playing with articles there--"a" vs. "the"--
the German A-bomb threat set a huge war effort in motion.
There was no reason for Truman to apologize because he did not mislead us into that war.
But let's turn that one around and say there was no reason for Obama to apologize to the Japanese in 2009 for the A-bomb because he didn't lead (let alone mislead us into that war)?
Why are you such a consistent fluffer for Obama? You might wind up with some surprise on your face like your buddy Andy R.
EMD,
What do your comments have to do with the war in Iraq which my response to chickenlittle's comment about the Germans and WW II was in reponse to?
Also, North Korea is not just China’s problem. We are technically still in a state of war with North Korea. No peace treaty was ever signed in that conflict.
Wormtongue,
1) President Bush never mentioned an imminent attack, with WMD or without. He said we needed to resolve the problem before an attack became imminent.
2) There are 4 simple, easy, and obvious ways that there was WMD in Iraq, and yet we did not find it after the invasion:
a) it was trucked out
b) it was released in the desert (WMD degrades rapidly in heat/sunlight)
c) it was buried in the desert (all the WMD we know he had at the end of Gulf War I would fit in a 2-car garage...hidden in an area the size of CA, would you find it in your lifetime?)
d) it was taken away by regime insiders to use on US troops in IEDs
3) WMD was used on US troops in IED attacks. It is easily found with a Google search.
You have been proven wrong years ago, but childishly repeat falsehoods.
Either you believe transparent, obvious liars, or you knowingly repeat lies.
Neither reflects well on you.
Whether or not you served, you betray those who protect the nation and keep us free.
Leslyn, you're wrong about that. Heisenberg led a small effort which was no where near being a credible threat. It fizzled early. The Germans were much better at making rockets.
chickenlittle said...
“I think you're playing with articles there--"a" vs. "the"-- the German A-bomb threat set a huge war effort in motion.”
What precipitated our entry into World War II?
“But let's turn that one around and say there was no reason for Obama to apologize to the Japanese in 2009 for the A-bomb because he didn't lead (let alone mislead us into that war)?”
What does Obama’s actions have to do with Bush misleading us into war?
“Why are you such a consistent fluffer for Obama? You might wind up with some surprise on your face like your buddy Andy R.”
Not a fluffer. I’m just not interested in being a hypocrite.
"... You need to read up on the concept of national interests..."
Well aware of them. The argument for Serbia and Libya was to prevent genocide. There is certainly a moral interest there but not a national one.
"..Why didn’t we take out Stalin and Mao who were both ruthless dictators and who each killed millions?..."
Good question, perhaps because we were sick of war? Or the Soviets and Chinese had pretty powerful armies? Then again you claimed civilian massacres were national interests. I on the other hand thing the military should be deployed when we are under attack or threat of attack.
"... Also, still waiting for an answer to the question, was Bush in fact clueless about the war in Iraq?.."
Sure he was. You had to be to think those people could build something resembling a functioning democracy. I agreed with the French, we should have removed sanctions and made a deal with him. Since Saddam was a secular dictator he could have been a valuable ally against jihadists.
Realpolitik
Nathan Alexander said...
“1) President Bush never mentioned an imminent attack, with WMD or without. He said we needed to resolve the problem before an attack became imminent.”
Go back and review his speeches at the time.
“ 2) There are 4 simple, easy, and obvious ways that there was WMD in Iraq, and yet we did not find it after the invasion:
a) it was trucked out
b) it was released in the desert (WMD degrades rapidly in heat/sunlight)
c) it was buried in the desert (all the WMD we know he had at the end of Gulf War I would fit in a 2-car garage...hidden in an area the size of CA, would you find it in your lifetime?)
d) it was taken away by regime insiders to use on US troops in IEDs”
You and Mick should get together and share stories with each other.
“3) WMD was used on US troops in IED attacks. It is easily found with a Google search.”
Nothing was found on the scale which the Bush Administration postulated in the effort to get the nation into war.
Wormtongue,
Also, still waiting for an answer to the question, was Bush in fact clueless about the war in Iraq?
Bush was not clueless about the war in Iraq.
But you are. As you so freely demonstrate every time you make a fool out of yourself and a hero to the Left (but I repeat myself) repeating nonsense about WMD in Iraq.
Hint: repeating liberal talking points doesn't make you right. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
Even if the dogs are marked for Obama's consumption.
36fsfiend said...
Dubya didn't mislead us into Iraq. Tenet, maybe, but not Dubya.
Dubya was the man in charge, the Commander-in-Chief. He owns it.
Try again.
fiend wants us to operate on the Lefty propaganda Dubya lied. This, of course, has always been a lie.
The idea Saddam had WMDs - and he did, of course - was held as Gospel all over the world. Dubya trusted his intel establishment to give him accurate info, so the intel people screwed up.
fiend is doing his usual Uncle Saul act, trying to get some kind of admission to the usual Lefty lies.
And, yes, I'm proud to say I voted for Dubya.
Then what to you think about his joke regarding not finding WMDs and his misleading us into the war with Iraq? Do you believe as Rabel that he belittled his office and caused harm to the country and those who serve?
Spare me the faux outrage. As Mr Churchill noted, we have all had our laugh among the skulls and a little self-deprecation is an admirable trait in a good leader - which certainly explains why Zero is so bad. More to the point, I'm willing to bet Dubya met with more servicemen's families than Zero has.
And, as far as I can see, Rabel said nothing of the kind of Dubya.
fiend is taking a break from the "office" to see how far his sophistry will stretch today.
Hoosier Daddy said...
“Well aware of them. The argument for Serbia and Libya was to prevent genocide. There is certainly a moral interest there but not a national one.”
You don’t believe the prevention of genocide is not in the national interest of the U.S.? Are you an American?
“Good question, perhaps because we were sick of war? Or the Soviets and Chinese had pretty powerful armies? Then again you claimed civilian massacres were national interests. I on the other hand thing the military should be deployed when we are under attack or threat of attack.”
The military situation is one part of the answer. You’re starting to think now.
“Sure he was. You had to be to think those people could build something resembling a functioning democracy. I agreed with the French, we should have removed sanctions and made a deal with him. Since Saddam was a secular dictator he could have been a valuable ally against jihadists.”
So you agree Bush was clueless about the Iraq war and now you bash Obama. Interesting.
I know the answers to all of your 2:22PM questions. I suspect you know the answer to my last question at 2:16PM but you're dodging.
Nothing was found on the scale which the Bush Administration postulated in the effort to get the nation into war.
How much of an iceberg shows above the water?
If a man is accused of stealing $3 Billion of marked bills, and is later found with ten of those marked bills and no explanation, will he be charged for the theft of $10, or $3 billion?
If a person is murdered by 300 stab wounds, and 298 are judged to be able to cause death, and a second individual is found in position of a knife with the victim's blood, do you think it would make much sense to claim he only made the 2 non-fatal stabs, but someone else did the rest?
WMD was found in Iraq. You can say it.
No, wait, of course you can't. You don't care one fig about the truth.
Please review the reasons we invaded Iraq. Please list:
1) The specified volume of WMD that had to be found to justify the invasion.
2) The entire list of justifications for the invasion.
But you won't, of course. You don't have the courage or the honesty.
And, as far as I can see, Rabel said nothing of the kind of Dubya.
Why would he?
Dubya doesn't deserve to be lumped with the likes of you and Obama.
edutcher,
Dubya was the Commander-in-Chief. He owns. Period. As far as Saddam having WMDs, I suggest you review Bush’s exit interviews.
Regarding Dubya’s joke about not finding WMDs, I don’t think it was self-deprecation. I think he was letting us all know that he didn’t believe his own BS.
“1) President Bush never mentioned an imminent attack, with WMD or without. He said we needed to resolve the problem before an attack became imminent.”
Go back and review his speeches at the time.
No, Nathan is right. This is why there was such a debate over the employment of "preventative war." If the claim had been that an attack was imminent, we would never have debated that issue.
Nothing was found on the scale which the Bush Administration postulated in the effort to get the nation into war.
True. The simple fact of the matter is that Bush was misled (and wrong), as was most of Congress, as was pretty much every intelligence agency in the world. The mistake was not an unreasonable one to make.
You don’t believe the prevention of genocide is not in the national interest of the U.S.? Are you an American?
If it is, then we are rather inconsistent in protecting our national interest.
So you agree Bush was clueless about the Iraq war and now you bash Obama. Interesting.
Well, to be fair Obama's pretty damn clueless himself.
Nathan Alexander said...
“How much of an iceberg shows above the water?
If a man is accused of stealing $3 Billion of marked bills, and is later found with ten of those marked bills and no explanation, will he be charged for the theft of $10, or $3 billion?
If a person is murdered by 300 stab wounds, and 298 are judged to be able to cause death, and a second individual is found in position of a knife with the victim's blood, do you think it would make much sense to claim he only made the 2 non-fatal stabs, but someone else did the rest?
WMD was found in Iraq. You can say it.”
Some deteriorating artillery shells with Mustard gas from the 1980s. You know, the time period when we supported Saddam using chemical weapons against Iran.
Nothing was found to justify the invasion as claimed by the administration.
Like I stated, you and Mick need to get together and swap stories.
"... You don’t believe the prevention of genocide is not in the national interest of the U.S.? Are you an American?.."
Redblooded and raised on apple pie. Again, I said its a moral interest not a national one. If we want to help stop civilian massacres with sanctions, diplomacy, candlelight vigils fine. But the US military should not be involved.
"...The military situation is one part of the answer. You’re starting to think now..."
Hardly. My consistent position is to use military force when we are attacked or under threat of attack. Ghadaffi killing rebels in his own country doesn't count.
"..So you agree Bush was clueless about the Iraq war and now you bash Obama. Interesting..."
I think Obama is clueless about a whole raft of things to be bashed for.
Blue@9 said...
“The simple fact of the matter is that Bush was misled (and wrong), as was most of Congress, as was pretty much every intelligence agency in the world. The mistake was not an unreasonable one to make.”
Bush was misled. Why was he misled, as you claim?
Blue@9 said...
“If it is, then we are rather inconsistent in protecting our national interest.”
Blue,
Don’t you believe the prevention of genocide is in the national interest of the U.S.?
Bush was misled. Why was he misled, as you claim?
Because Saddam went to great lengths to convince everyone he had WMD.
"... If it is, then we are rather inconsistent in protecting our national interest..."
Well 36 told me we can't take a cookie cutter approach to every civilian massacre/genocide.
Unless of course a Democrat is in charge then you take a daisy cutter approach.
Blue@9 said...
“If it is, then we are rather inconsistent in protecting our national interest.”
Blue,
Don’t you believe the prevention of genocide is in the national interest of the U.S.?
It can be. Like you, I tend to look at each situation on a case-by-case basis. I can see the case for Serbia, because it's on Europe's backside and we don't want to see that kind of instability there. I can see the case for Libya-- oil does matter. Can you see the case for Iraq?
leslyn asked me:
"And Rabel, what would you have him do, 24 hours a day, to show what you regard as proper respect for our war casualties?"
I think it's not possible for Obama to show a proper respect which he does not feel.
And while your 24 hour criteria takes the question to an absurd extreme, I would like to see him at least maintain the appearance of due respect for the office and his responsibilities.
An interview with a comic host is an understandable, if questionable, campaign tactic, but playing monkey to Fallon's organ grinder is a bridge too far.
Hoosier Daddy said...
“Redblooded and raised on apple pie. Again, I said its a moral interest not a national one. If we want to help stop civilian massacres with sanctions, diplomacy, candlelight vigils fine. But the US military should not be involved.”
So you’re OK if the Arab nations wipe out Israel. We shouldn’t get involved militarily, is that correct?
“Hardly. My consistent position is to use military force when we are attacked or under threat of attack. Ghadaffi killing rebels in his own country doesn't count.”
What threat of attack did Iraq pose to us?
I don't like when Presidents appear in entertainment, because it's impossible not to seem frivolous or foolish, but some people like it, I suppose. Palin was cute on SNL but if it was a joke or not, they made a thing/joke about how actually performing that rap song was too undignified. And she was just running for VP, not actually in office, and not President. It's a risky thing. I was much younger when Clinton played his Sax on television, and since I was younger my sense of how undignified that was, was even greater. Just say no, if you're the President, just say no.
Since I personally detest "roasts" I can't imagine why a President would ever participate in one of them, or in the correspondent's dinner, which seems just as bad. I suppose it proves you're a good sport, but I just hate the things.
Now... golfing...
I depends, I suppose. Powerful, ambitious, people seem to commonly have quite strict habits of participating in some sort of sport. Bush ran regularly, I think. Palin complained of being kept from running, which would have allowed her to think and process her debate cram sessions. I don't exercise (I know I should) but it does seem that people who work very very hard, also need those regular breaks.
Golf seems a bit more casual, but I figure that business happens and better decisions are made. So I'm reluctant to criticize too much, even during war time.
And speaking of *that*... I never cared much for the complaint that we, as a nation, weren't dour enough, that Bush was wrong to tell us to go shopping, that we were supposed to suffer properly in order to make it all okay, or something. But being dour here really doesn't help someone who is over there, does it?
OTOH, Obama does seem to have elaborate and frequent to-do's at the White House and the world travel is unprecedented. Bush dropped unexpectedly and quietly into Kabul; Obama took over two huge hotels for weeks and had them build a two mile tunnel to keep him safe from snipers in Mumbai. (Or wherever that was... India!) And that's not even starting on the trips Michelle takes without him.
Blue@9 said...
“Because Saddam went to great lengths to convince everyone he had WMD.”
Saddam claimed he didn’t have WMDs, which turned out to be true. We claimed he had them. So again, why was Bush misled as you claim?
Blue@9 said...
“It can be. Like you, I tend to look at each situation on a case-by-case basis. I can see the case for Serbia, because it's on Europe's backside and we don't want to see that kind of instability there. I can see the case for Libya-- oil does matter. Can you see the case for Iraq?”
Regarding Iraq, we supported Saddam for many years even while he used gas against his own people. The reasons Bush called for the war with Iraq were WMD and a link with al-Qaeda.
"... So you’re OK if the Arab nations wipe out Israel. We shouldn’t get involved militarily, is that correct?..."
Well since they have tried doing just that 4-5 times and gotten their asses beat, I'm not worried. Then again we don't have a mutual defense pact with then either.
"...What threat of attack did Iraq pose to us?.."
Outside of constantly trying to shoot down our fighters patrolling the UN sanctioned no fly zone, none that I am aware of.
I for one opposed the gulf wars. Had Saddam taken out Saudi Arabia, might have done a whole lot of house cleaning of al qaeda.
Saddam claimed he didn’t have WMDs, which turned out to be true. We claimed he had them. So again, why was Bush misled as you claim?
You cannot possibly be this obtuse. Saddam deliberately created the impression that he was hiding WMDs. Even members of his inner circle thought he had them. This is not some novel conspiracy theory I'm trotting out, and if you're at all intellectually honest you'll acknowledge this.
Regarding Iraq, we supported Saddam for many years even while he used gas against his own people.
What difference does that make? We stopped supporting him more than a decade before war. Besides, we were getting pretty friendly with Gaddafi right up until the end.
The reasons Bush called for the war with Iraq were WMD and a link with al-Qaeda.
And why were WMD and al-Qaeda considered a threat there? Would Bush have attacked if the same allegations arose about Paraguay? No. It's quite a serious matter when we're talking about aggressive dictator with potential WMDs in the most oil-rich region of the world.
Since Wormtongue can't tell the truth even when given multiple chances to, here is the truth:
Justification for invading Iraq:
Remove a regime that:
1) developed and used weapons of mass destruction
2) harbored and supported terrorists
3) committed outrageous human rights abuses
4) and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world
Which of those do you deny, Wormtongue?
For the invasion of Iraq the rationale was "the United States relied on the authority of UN Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687 to use all necessary means to compel Iraq to comply with its international obligations"
Was Iraq complying with UNSCR 678 and 687, Wormtongue?
If not, then the amount of WMD found in Iraq afterward is immaterial.
You can't tell the truth, because the truth doesn't support your agenda.
What does that say about your agenda?
Hoosier Daddy said...
“Well since they have tried doing just that 4-5 times and gotten their asses beat, I'm not worried. Then again we don't have a mutual defense pact with then either.”
So how about Iran? They’re not Arabs but have called for the destruction of Israel. You’re OK with them getting and launching a nuke at Israel?
“Outside of constantly trying to shoot down our fighters patrolling the UN sanctioned no fly zone, none that I am aware of.”
Those were not direct threats to our country as Bush claimed was the case for the war.
“I for one opposed the gulf wars. Had Saddam taken out Saudi Arabia, might have done a whole lot of house cleaning of al qaeda.”
But al-Qaeda was in Afghanistan, right? And if Iraq went into Saudi Arabia, our national interest, i.e., oil supplies, would have been threatened.
The reasons Bush called for the war with Iraq were WMD and a link with al-Qaeda.
Wrong again, on both counts.
Maybe you should stop listening to such unreliable sources.
None of the justifications for invading Iraq included even general amounts of WMD or al-Qaeda.
As already shown.
Wormtongue,
Although we did not invade Iraq due to connections with al Qaeda (as shown), I suppose you are now going to repeat the falsehood that al Qaeda and Saddam had no connections and would never work together due to religious differences?
Blue@9 said...
“You cannot possibly be this obtuse. Saddam deliberately created the impression that he was hiding WMDs. Even members of his inner circle thought he had them. This is not some novel conspiracy theory I'm trotting out, and if you're at all intellectually honest you'll acknowledge this.”
Have you read the reports issued by the UN weapon inspectors prior to the invasion?
“What difference does that make? We stopped supporting him more than a decade before war.”
It makes a difference because that is not the reason we went to war. If 9/11 didn’t occur, Bush would never have been able to make a case for us to go to war with Iraq based on our past relationship.
“And why were WMD and al-Qaeda considered a threat there?
There was no threat from Iraq. Nothing in Iraq changed from what existed there before 9/11. What changed was now there was some supposed link that was tied into the attack – Bush’s accusation. That, coupled with the anger and fear from the attacks helped Bush make his case. People wanted blood for 9/11.
36fsfiend said...
Dubya was the Commander-in-Chief. He owns. Period.
Stick a Tampax on your period.
fiend can say it all day long, it doesn't make it so.
As far as Saddam having WMDs, I suggest you review Bush’s exit interviews.
I suggest fiend take a look at what was actually found (thousands of chemical rounds - and he damned well knows it, BTW) and quit wasting everybody's time with nonsense that was proven to be lies a couple of years ago
Regarding Dubya’s joke about not finding WMDs, I don’t think it was self-deprecation. I think he was letting us all know that he didn’t believe his own BS.
I could care less what fiend thinks. Dubya has shown a Hell of a lot more sensitivity to the men and women under his command than some narcisstic moron who thinks he's being cute calling the Marines' medics, "Corpsemen".
Nathan Alexander said...
"Justification for invading Iraq:
Remove a regime that:
1) developed and used weapons of mass destruction
2) harbored and supported terrorists
3) committed outrageous human rights abuses
4) and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world"
Your leaving off Bush’s claim that we could not contain Saddam after 9/11 and that his WMDs would directly threaten us. That’s how he got us into a war without a UN resolution calling for an invasion. Resolution 1441 did not authorize an invasion.
Your leaving off Bush’s claim that we could not contain Saddam after 9/11 and that his WMDs would directly threaten us. That’s how he got us into a war without a UN resolution calling for an invasion. Resolution 1441 did not authorize an invasion.
I'm not leaving anything off.
This assertion of yours has no basis in reality. Quit repeating falsehoods
What did Resolution 1441 authorize, exactly?
The reasons for invasion are spelled out.
Why can't you face up to it?
Why did you leave out the part that the NYT admitted it spreads lies in service of getting Democrats elected?
Why did you leave out the part that Obama admitted he will sell out the nation the first change he gets?
You, personally, are morally bankrupt. You repeat the transparent lies of those who do not have the nation's best interests at heart, and who actively work to reduce liberty and add more power to progressive, self-styled elite.
Nathan Alexander said...
“Although we did not invade Iraq due to connections with al Qaeda (as shown), I suppose you are now going to repeat the falsehood that al Qaeda and Saddam had no connections and would never work together due to religious differences?”
Supposed connections was part of the pitch. As far as al Qaeda and Saddam having no connections and not working together being a falsehood, I guess in your mind that’s true.
edutcher said...
“Stick a Tampax on your period.”
Then Obama is not responsible for actions as CinC.
“I suggest fiend take a look at what was actually found (thousands of chemical rounds - and he damned well knows it, BTW) and quit wasting everybody's time with nonsense that was proven to be lies a couple of years ago.
Listen to Bush’s own words in his exit interviews. Or is he not responsible for those as well? What is the man responsible for?
“I could care less what fiend thinks. Dubya has shown a Hell of a lot more sensitivity to the men and women under his command than some narcisstic moron who thinks he's being cute calling the Marines' medics, "Corpsemen"”
That’s why Bush authorized the use of torture, right? He cared so much for the men and women under his command.
Nathan Alexander said...
“What did Resolution 1441 authorize, exactly?”
Read up on it. I’m not going to spoon feed you.
President Bush never said that there was an imminent threat of WMD. Here are his exact words in his SOTU speech in 2003:
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
And no, finding WMD was NOT one of the reasons for going into Iraq. As far as WMD was concerned, we wanted Saddam to verify that he no longer had them (because we knew he did in fact have them when he used them against the Kurds). He didn't comply and kicked the UN inspectors out of the country, instead. The onus was on Hussein to verify they weren't there, not for us prove they were there.
heyboom,
Just a couple of quotes:
"Absolutely."
-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
"This is about imminent threat."
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
“And no, finding WMD was NOT one of the reasons for going into Iraq.”
You’re kidding, right?
"... So how about Iran? They’re not Arabs but have called for the destruction of Israel. You’re OK with them getting and launching a nuke at Israel?.."
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you crticize Romney for wanting to bomb Iran to prevent them from getting nukes?
Since Iran also has nukes I'm confident they can defend themselves.
"...Those were not direct threats to our country as Bush claimed was the case for the war..."
Nope. But when I read the Congressional authorization it was one of many reasons. Check it out sometime.
"...But al-Qaeda was in Afghanistan, right? And if Iraq went into Saudi Arabia, our national interest, i.e., oil supplies, would have been threatened..."
Threatened by who? I recall one of the big liberal outcries over the wars was that Saddam was our buddy. Remember those pictures of Saddam and Rumsfeld shaking hands?
Was al qaeda even around in 1991? And if so wouldn't they gave gone after Saddam for desecrating the holy land?
"That’s why Bush authorized the use of torture, right? He cared so much for the men and women under his command."
Non-sequitur?
What does one have to do with the other? The rank and file weren't authorized to water-board or torture anyone.
Or do you imagine that it provoked retaliation and bad treatment if any of our troops were captured? Maybe, instead of just sawing off their head, they'd insult the soldier's mother at the same time?
Synova wrote: What does one have to do with the other? The rank and file weren't authorized to water-board or torture anyone.
Fiend is good at conflation. That's why he's a fluffer.
Based on his 3:22 admission, I'm beginning to suspect that Fiend was at some point betrayed by Bush, or felt himself important enough to feel so.
36fsfiend said...
Stick a Tampax on your period.
Then Obama is not responsible for actions as CinC.
Try again. We're none of us any better than the info we have, but when Dictator Zero decides that he can talk the Tahleebahn into being nice because he thinks he's so brilliant and so cool and so charming, he's responsible.
When his hand-picked man, McChrystal, hands him a troop list for the surge Zero ordered and Zero takes it upon himself to cut it in half because he knows better than a professional military man, he's responsible.
And when Little Zero decides to announce a pullout date from A-stan against everybody's advice, yeah, he's responsible.
That’s why Bush authorized the use of torture, right? He cared so much for the men and women under his command.
It wasn't torture until the Lefties called it that because they needed something with which to castigate him. And it wasn't torture when Pelosi Galore and half the Demos in Congress signed off on it when they thought their asses were in danger.
But, yes, fiend finally gets it (God, how long did that take?). Dubya ordered the waterboarding because it would save the lives of American servicepeople in the field and because it would save the lives of American citizens at home.
Somebody like fiend should be really embarrassed to have to get up here and spout all these lies that have been disproved so often and for so long. But that's what it takes to be a Lefty.
To spend your life living one lie after another.
Hoosier Daddy said...
"Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you crticize Romney for wanting to bomb Iran to prevent them from getting nukes?"
First, answer the question about Iran attacking Israel. Should we intervene militarily if that happens?
Secondly, I’m against Romney who seems to want to use military force without exhausting the other options.
“Since Iran also has nukes I'm confident they can defend themselves.”
Who has definitively claimed that Iran has nukes?
“Nope. But when I read the Congressional authorization it was one of many reasons. Check it out sometime.”
I’m aware of the attacks on our aircraft since I’ve flown missions in Operation Southern Watch. But again, that wasn’t the main reason for the invasion of Iraq.
“Threatened by who? I recall one of the big liberal outcries over the wars was that Saddam was our buddy. Remember those pictures of Saddam and Rumsfeld shaking hands?
You stated if Saddam had taken out Saudi Arabia, it might have done a whole lot of house cleaning of al qaeda. It would have also threatened oil supplies.
As far as Saddam and Rumsfeld shaking hands, that’s one reason that we couldn't justify our invasion of Iraq simply on a humanitarian issue. We supported him while he used gas on people.
“Was al qaeda even around in 1991? And if so wouldn't they gave gone after Saddam for desecrating the holy land?”
Al-Qadea was founded by bin Laden sometime between August 1988 and late 1989. I don’t know if they would have gone after Saddam if he invaded. Perhaps, since they were angry with us for desecration their holy land.
Re prevention of genocide: " Again, I said its a moral interest not a national one. If we want to help stop civilian massacres with sanctions, diplomacy, candlelight vigils fine. But the US military should not be involved. "
Reminds me of calls for US involvement in Burma; demands that we "do something" to stop the killing in Burma without doing anything that would actually stop the killing in Burma.
Because force is icky.
But! Hope is not lost. Moral virtue can be gotten without the icky stuff that actually works by "doing something" to prove that we're good people.
Like sanctions.
Or diplomacy.
Or candle-light vigils.
Or, we could just go Ghandi's route, as we did in Burma, and just wait until the government has killed enough of the people they're set on killing to get either tired of it, or done with it.
Or, win/win, we can do both at the same time... rend some garments and wail, and go with Ghandi's solution and just wait until there are no more people to kill.
And maybe we *ought* to. I'm not at all arguing that we, or anyone else, must intervene all over the place just to be sure that the right people die (ie, the people set on genocide and not the people group targeted for genocide), but let us please have some moral clarity over just what is going on.
Oh, and clearly the statement that preventing genocide is a *moral* interest and not in any way a *national* interest is entirely accurate.
Synova,
I stated:
"That’s why Bush authorized the use of torture, right? He cared so much for the men and women under his command."
You stated:
“Non-sequitur? What does one have to do with the other? The rank and file weren't authorized to water-board or torture anyone.”
Read up on General Petraeus’ comments about torture. You obviously don’t understand how it can impact our troops.
rhhardin said...
Obama is good on the war on terror, though, forgetting undermining it with pullout dates
=================
I don't think so. I think even Republicans have move past the "We owe it to the noble Iraqis/Afghanis/Somalis/Syrians/Iranians to invade and spend trillions nation-building". For as long as it takes ..."Decades if need be - so our Heroes can advance womans rights, build roads and schools, and stop the Evildoers from hitting us again".
Right now, people understand we cannot afford eternal wars of Neocon nation-building. They wouldn't mind seeing Bush's "special friends" Maliki and Karzai hanging from lamp posts and the locals ripping open shipping pallets of bundled 100 dollar bills given to the dickheads by both Bush and Obama.
Roads built and bridges repaired in America, not Afghanistan. Females in Afghanistan can't afford to go to college - too bad. Focus on affordable college here. If the Evildoers return...go in with B-52s and dust their Jihadi asses again...we don't need occupying "hero troops" to Keep Us All 100% ZERO Tolerance Safe!
chickenlittle said...
“Synova wrote: What does one have to do with the other? The rank and file weren't authorized to water-board or torture anyone.
Fiend is good at conflation. That's why he's a fluffer.”
Apparently, you also should read up on General Petraeus’ comments about torture. You obviously don’t understand how it can impact our troops, as well.
Fiend, telling me to go do my home-work in no way absolves you of having to support your own assertions.
You made them, you support them.
edutcher said...
“Try again. We're none of us any better than the info we have, but when Dictator Zero decides that he can talk the Tahleebahn into being nice because he thinks he's so brilliant and so cool and so charming, he's responsible.”
So, is Obama misleading us?
“When his hand-picked man, McChrystal, hands him a troop list for the surge Zero ordered and Zero takes it upon himself to cut it in half because he knows better than a professional military man, he's responsible.”
He took recommendation from the Chief of Staff before making that decision.
“And when Little Zero decides to announce a pullout date from A-stan against everybody's advice, yeah, he's responsible.”
Do you understand how the pullout date was determined?
“It wasn't torture until the Lefties called it that because they needed something with which to castigate him. And it wasn't torture when Pelosi Galore and half the Demos in Congress signed off on it when they thought their asses were in danger.”
I suggest you read up on the history of waterboarding.
“But, yes, fiend finally gets it (God, how long did that take?). Dubya ordered the waterboarding because it would save the lives of American servicepeople in the field and because it would save the lives of American citizens at home.”
Apparently, you also should read up on General Petraeus’ comments about torture. You obviously don’t understand how it can impact our troops, as well.
“Somebody like fiend should be really embarrassed to have to get up here and spout all these lies that have been disproved so often and for so long. But that's what it takes to be a Lefty.
I have no reason to lie. I’m not a politician pandering for your vote.
However, it is interesting reading comments of people as they twist themselves into pretzels to justify the actions of Bush.
Synova said...
"Fiend, telling me to go do my home-work in no way absolves you of having to support your own assertions.
You made them, you support them."
I'm not going to spoon feed you. Read up and then I'll be happy to discuss with you.
The question of interrogation methods is *complicated* and everyone knows that.
But we do have to get intelligence, do we not? So the line has to be drawn somewhere.
As a pure leadership issue, I'd prefer that line to be drawn as clearly as possible. The worst possible thing is what many *many* anti-water-boarding people were publicly and loudly insisting upon, which was having a public policy of no-torture but a real policy of expecting the rank and file to fall on their swords if it meant saving lives.
That is entirely vile and profoundly anti-troop! It's a moral cess-pool masquerading as virtue. People wanted not to be *embarrassed* internationally, but if it meant finding a dirty-bomb or preventing some horrific event, they wanted, and publicly said so and argued so in national publications!, they wanted the person in the hot-seat to go ahead and pull out fingernails. They wanted to feel good about themselves AND be protected by better people than themselves, who would then have broken our laws.
I've no sympathy for it.
However, it is interesting reading comments of people as they twist themselves into pretzels to justify the actions of Bush.
I too am entertained by solo commenters who commandeer discussions in fruitless attempts to convince reasonable people in the name of reason--and then fail.
I won't be giving up Schadenfruede anytime soon.
caplight45 said...
When things are going well, no wars, economy rolling and markets expanding a President can occasionally do something light-hearted like Bill Clinton playing the sax on a late night TV show.
But when things are in the tank it makes a president look insincere and frivolous
=======================
We are not psychologially geared to all don hair shirts and lap the boots of the Hero Soldiers and TSA people Who Keep Us All Safe indefinitely. When these wars of nation-building go on for decades and the Heroes die in dribs and drabs and we realize the Evildoers Who Hijacked the REligion of Peace are NOT being fought by TSA goons groping Granny - we get tired of being told we must all emotionally subordinate ourselves to Eternal War and the Heroes who fight it.
We get tired of hearing we "owe it" to the noble Afghani girls, the noble Iraqis, our noble Special Friends the Israelis, or how we have a duty to help the noble Congolese and the noble NORKs.
And the whole HOW DARE a President have a single moment of enjoyment when Heroes are suffering trying to save noble Muslims from themselves, when Dead Heroes are arriving at Dover!
"I'm not going to spoon feed you. Read up and then I'll be happy to discuss with you."
Yes, of course, because being asked to support your own arguments is "spoon-feeding" me.
You would far rather simply be allowed any assertion you please. I get that. It's easier.
This way you get to pretend you've presented a sound argument to people who have at length considered and discussed the issue without ever ever having to actually even make the argument.
Brilliant.
But transparent.
Synova,
Obviously you haven’t read General Petraeus’ comments about torture.
Take a guess how it might impact our own troops.
err, Schadenfreude...whatevs.
chickenlittle,
“I too am entertained by solo commenters who commandeer discussions in fruitless attempts to convince reasonable people in the name of reason--and then fail.
I won't be giving up Schadenfruede anytime soon.”
Tell to me about torture.
Why should we intervene militarily on Israels behalf? We never have in their previous wars. Plus they have nukes, what do they need our military for?
As for Romney, what other options are there? We've been negotiating with them for nearly a decade over nukes. Sanctions aren't working and your vaunted UN won't do anything so what other options?
Seems like your preffered option for military intervention is after they nuke Tel Aviv.
Oh and I meant to say Israel definitely has nukes, they don't need us to defend them.
Hoosier Daddy said...
“Why should we intervene militarily on Israels behalf? We never have in their previous wars. Plus they have nukes, what do they need our military for?”
So then we shouldn’t be wasting our efforts with Iran, correct? Israel can deal with them fine?
As for Romney, what other options are there? We've been negotiating with them for nearly a decade over nukes. Sanctions aren't working and your vaunted UN won't do anything so what other options?
Have you read about the negotiations that took place in Istanbul this month and the ones schedule for Bagdad next month? Apparently not
Wormtongue
I'm not going to spoon feed you. Read up and then I'll be happy to discuss with you.
You're not going to spoon feed because there is nothing there to spoon feed.
The irony meter pegged on you telling someone to look something up. You won't face up to the truth, even after it is spoon fed to you. None of your anti-Bush nonsense you've said in this thread is remotely true.
It is all liberal propaganda.
I've provided the facts. You spin. I've provided more facts, you moved the goalposts.
You are a no-integrity hack, repeating liberal falsehoods because you lack the capacity to recognize what is true and what is false. The only thing you can do is repeat liberal canards over and over and over and over and over.
Fact:
We didn't invade Iraq due to the presence of WMD. We invaded Iraq for the reasons listed. Among those were Saddam's failure to cooperate with WMD inspectors. There were strong indications he wanted to maintain turnkey production capability of WMD, and had never demonstrated he destroyed the WMD we knew he had at the end of Gulf War 1.
He didn't comply with UNSC resolutions. Those promised serious repercussions. The world already imposed sanctions on Iraq, and he was abusing those to enrich himself and members of the UN. There was no other option left but to force compliance with the previous UNSCRs. Force compliance = invasion.
We found WMD in Iraq after invading. Not in mass amounts, but it didn't have to be. The presence was enough to prove he never intended compliance with any of the UNSCRs. And your "from the 80s" crap won't float here OR in a the toilet. It was consistent with materials that had been out of climate-controlled storage for less than 5 years.
Saddam had contact with Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to our invasion, helping Saddam deal with sub-groups of citizens. Documents have shown that they had discussions regarding closer activities in the future.
But that had nothing to do with the invasion.
Saddam was bankrolling terrorism, was harboring terrorists in his nation, and provided training locations for terrorists.
Saddam used WMD on his own people. Aside from those he used on his own people, he had rape rooms, fed people into woodchippers, used rape and threat of rape of key individual daughters to keep them in line, had mass graves of women and children he'd killed, and his sons tortured people.
Real torture, not "enhanced interrogation techniques".
You are morally bankrupt. I'm surprised you have the gall to spread such evil lies anywhere.
Nathan Alexander,
You are becoming tedious.
Regards.
36fsfiend said...
edutcher said...
Try again. We're none of us any better than the info we have, but when Dictator Zero decides that he can talk the Tahleebahn into being nice because he thinks he's so brilliant and so cool and so charming, he's responsible.
So, is Obama misleading us?
As I said, he's a narcissitic moron.
Otherwise, I'll keep it short.
fiend can play the sophist as long as there are KosKidz to sit at a terminal using his account to post replies.
The "torture" thing was brought up only to have an issue against Dubya.
The pullout date is less the issue than Zero wanted to tell the whole world about it. That's what everyone found objectionable - and stupid.
People like fiend like to use the crutch of reading comprehension when somebody jams the truth down their throats. He and his friends (if he has any) should check it out themselves; I was talking about Zero shooting his mouth off.
Again, waterboarding has been praised as saving thousands of lives. fiend doesn't care about that. As for Petraeus' remarks, the general's a good man, but he feels he must follow the lead of the Administration here (witness the Marine discharged for posting his views on his Facebook page). There are plenty who disagree.
I'm just bringing up facts. fiend, and that's all the people using his account, are the ones twisting themselves.
But he knows that.
Obviously you haven’t read General Petraeus’ comments about torture.
Oh, so now a mis-reading of a General's comment cannot be questioned, huh?
It is so hard to tell when you think a military officer is worth listening to, and when you think it justified to run ads claiming a military officer is a traitor (betray-us). Even more fascinating when it is the same officer.
You speak out of both sides of your mouth at once.
In this case General Petraeus was not correctly looking at the long-term situation; he was only considering limited, short-term effects.
Because the US troops acting almost perfectly in showing respect to Islam never caused al Qaeda or the Taliban to fight honorably. And never gained us any room when a US troop made a mistake in treatment of a Muslim.
The problem is not the act of waterboarding. The problem is quislings who gave aid and comfort to the enemy by failing to investigate and widely disseminating false stories like the Koran flushing, yet downplaying stories of Muslims desecrating the Koran.
And you help them by credulously repeating the bs stories. Aren't you proud of how many US soldiers you've helped kill with your rhetorical support of the NYT, et al?
Nathan Alexander
You are becoming tedious.
Wormtongue,
Of course I am. Liars always find truth backed up by facts tedious. It keeps liars from being able to repeat their nonsense w/o opposition.
Admit you are wrong.
Everyone here knows it, including you. Why not just face up to the truth?
edutcher said...
"The "torture" thing was brought up only to have an issue against Dubya."
If you understood the implication of torture in terms of its impact on our own service members, than you would realize using it, as Bush did, does not support the troops.
And you know, bottom line, it's illegal and in violation of our Constitution.
So much for that oath to "Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution" that Bush swore to, right?
Sorry, that Amendment applies to American citizens, if it were torture, which it's not.
And the rest is fiend's faux concern for our servicepeople.
He just wants to grab onto anything he can to make Dubya look bad.
tell to me about torture
Fiend: Torture is broad term with many degrees of meaning. One definition even describes what you do here:
torture noun: the act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean.
We'd have to agree on the meaning the word first to have a meaningful discussion.
Let's change the subject to something more clearcut:
Do you condone killing without a trial?
Is assassination ever an ethical act?
Is it Constitutional?
edutcher,
You should bone up on the Constitution. The Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention against Torture are treaties. What does the Constitution state about treaties?
You probably should also become familiar with the Army's Field Manual regarding interrogations of POWs.
Like I said, we've spent almost a decade in multi lateral negotiations with Iran. I'll believe in progress when I see it.
So do you support US nuclear retaliation if Iran nukes Israel?
If you honestly think Iran is going to restrict its nuclear development to energy only than that is some major wishful thinking.
chickenlittle,
“Fiend: Torture is broad term with many degrees of meaning. One definition even describes what you do here.”
That’s because people on this site are twisting themselves into pretzels. If they were honest with themselves, there wouldn’t be so much pain.
Also, I’m referring to torture as classified by the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention against Torture.
Let me know when you are ready to discuss.
Speaking of torture are we sure its still not going on under Obama? I mean he said he wouldn't allow it but he also said he would close Gitmo too.
Heck Obama even whacked a US citizen in Yemen. Heck Taliban Johnny Walker Lindh got a trial under the evil Bush regime.
Hoosier Daddy,
I will support a response. But I’m hoping we will solve thus issue before getting to that point.
“If you honestly think Iran is going to restrict its nuclear development to energy only than that is some major wishful thinking.”
Why would Iran launch a nuclear attack? They realize that they would be killing themselves. Their leaders want to remain in power just as any other dictator.
They want a nuke for a bargaining chip, same as North Korea.
Also, I’m referring to torture as classified by the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention against Torture.
Lay it out. I want to hear it in your own words. If it's an important distinction from standard lexicography, especially.
Also, you don't lead the discussion here. You are the designated solipsistic soliloquist.
I asked you three questions.
ante up
Hoosier Daddy,
He signed an executive order against it. Although, it is already illegal in accordance with the Constitution. Gitmo is not closing now due to actions taken by Congress.
That US citizen in Yemen was an enemy combatant. And before you go off about Obama targeting Americans, you should read up on the program that was put in place during the Bush Administration after the 9/11 attacks.
chickenlittle,
I’ll respond as I please.
If you would like to discuss torture, let me know when you have reviewed the definitions in accordance with Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention against Torture.
What I like best about these types of discussions is that it makes Romney look good and more electable. So thanks for that Fiend. We can only speculate what he would do under the Presidential Oath.
"In this case General Petraeus was not correctly looking at the long-term situation; he was only considering limited, short-term effects.
Because the US troops acting almost perfectly in showing respect to Islam never caused al Qaeda or the Taliban to fight honorably. And never gained us any room when a US troop made a mistake in treatment of a Muslim."
Is that what Petraeus was talking about? If so, I responded to the concept in my very first comment.
The reasons for limiting our own behavior are 1) our own sense of right or wrong, which is independent of our troops, 2) to maintain discipline, which will be destroyed more effectively by a lack of clarity than by specific rules governing interrogation, or 3) to protect against mistreatment of our soldiers in return.
I've addressed all three points, which Fiend ignores. Did Petraeus say something else?
Argue the first point, and people do. The second comes down in favor of having a clear and official policy and official regimentation of who, what, where, and when. The third, in relation to the recent conflicts in the middle east is absurd.
As I *said*... what are they doing to do to escalate the treatment of prisoners in retaliation? Use bad language while sawing off heads and genitals?
No restraint on our part ever resulted in our enemy fighting honorably or reduced atrocities.
That covers everything that involves danger to our troops.
And making our decisions based on the good opinion of people and nations that fell to fainting because we handled someone roughly while giving our enemy a pass, is no good opinion worth having or even desiring.
In fact, bowing to such nonsense reveals weakness and potential and could put our people in danger because we're seen to lack resolve.
But opposing Bush was more important, I know.
I’ll respond as I please.
As will I
chickenlittle said...
“What I like best about these types of discussions is that it makes Romney look good and more electable. So thanks for that Fiend. We can only speculate what he would do under the Presidential Oath.”
Not sure how you can make that assessment. But, whatever floats your boat, as they say.
So you would support a nuclear strike on a country that didn't attack the United States. Gotcha.
Why would Iran launch a nuke attack? Probably cause they've been claiming they want to wipe Israel out.
I think Obama signed an executive order closing Gitmo too.
Bush isn't President anymore, Obama is. If your position that Obama is justified cause Bush did it then that's fine. I'm fine with your hypocrisy.
So five hours(!) after my comment about the futility of playing jumble and/or wordy-gurdy with fiend/harro/freder and what do I find?
I respect you all and sincerely hope you're getting some value out of all of this, but what about the value of some other potential commenter who is just getting home from work about now, logs onto althouse, has something to ADD to the conversation, sees 100 odd fiend/harro/freder related comments and says to themselves I don't have the patience to wade through all of this.
Sorry but I miss miss the new input and fresh ideas of potential com enters turned away by thread hyjackers like fiend/harro/freder
Synova,
Let me help you. Gen. Petraeus, a man who you know actually served in the military and commanded troops, stated torture is not only useless for gathering reliable intelligence but is detrimental to the security of American forces and the nation’s reputation.
"Lay it out. I want to hear it in your own words. If it's an important distinction from standard lexicography, especially."
He won't. Not gonna happen in this lifetime.
In any case, the UN is a joke where the worst human rights abusers sit in judgment and their definitions hold no weight or moral or even legal authority, so who cares?
The Geneva Conventions are reciprocal treaties between nations, not including any we are in conflict with now, who didn't sign them and don't follow them. They define every person we're fighting against now as illegal combatants with no rights, when it comes to that.
And holding to them simply to *hope* for reciprocal treatment for our soldiers or civilians is pissing in the ocean.
Saddam's uniformed armies were treated well and respectfully and released early on, free to return to their families and homes. Because we are decent people and our armies are the most professional in the world.
Hoosier Daddy said...
“So you would support a nuclear strike on a country that didn't attack the United States. Gotcha.”
I didn’t state I would support a nuclear attack. I stated I would support a response. That could be conventional.
“Why would Iran launch a nuke attack? Probably cause they've been claiming they want to wipe Israel out.”
OK, that’s rhetoric. Why would they want to kill themselves by launching an attack?
I think Obama signed an executive order closing Gitmo too.
No. Congress is not authorizing the funds to build a facility in the U.S. Too many people afraid of housing those prisoners in maximum security prisons on the mainland.
“Bush isn't President anymore, Obama is. If your position that Obama is justified cause Bush did it then that's fine. I'm fine with your hypocrisy.”
That’s not my position.
CWJ,
Just responding to comments directed to me.
Actually I’m still waiting for Rabel to response that she is also upset with Bush for belittling his office and causing harm to the country and those who serve with his joke about searching for WMDs as she is with Obama.
Petraeus according to Fiend: "torture is not only useless for gathering reliable intelligence"
As described during the "hot" war, intelligence isn't acted on without verification, because people lie. This is no surprise. All reports are that the instances of water-boarding resulted in enormous amounts of reliable information.
"but is detrimental to the security of American forces"
In normal situations, yes, it would be. Not that very many people, particularly the press and the anti-war cohort seem to give a shit. I doubt to this day that anyone involved in the Koran-flushing fiasco has lost a moment of sleep over the people now dead because of it.
"and the nation’s reputation."
Me: "And making our decisions based on the good opinion of people and nations that fell to fainting because we handled someone roughly while giving our enemy a pass, is no good opinion worth having or even desiring."
Also me: "People wanted not to be *embarrassed* internationally, but if it meant finding a dirty-bomb or preventing some horrific event, they wanted, and publicly said so and argued so in national publications!, they wanted the person in the hot-seat to go ahead and pull out fingernails. They wanted to feel good about themselves AND be protected by better people than themselves, who would then have broken our laws."
You've refused to "discuss" the issue because I wouldn't look up Petraeus's words, and all along I've commented directly on the points that he made.
Which you refuse to respond to.
Not that I'm worried over it. I've at least made arguments and explained my opinions. Appealing to authority is usually lame, so no one is surprised.
Synova,
It’s not Petraeus according to Fiend. It’s Petraeus according to Petraeus.
I think the man has more credibility on the issue of torture and its adverse effects than you. Just saying.
36fsfiend said...
You should bone up on the Constitution. The Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention against Torture are treaties. What does the Constitution state about treaties?
I don't see anyplace where the Constitution says it is superseded by a UN treaty and we did not define waterboarding as torture until the Left decided it was politically advantageous to do so. If we did, fiend would be here defending the Democrat caucus of the US Congress from charges it violated the VIII Amendment.
Hell, our Spec Ops guys are waterboarded.
You probably should also become familiar with the Army's Field Manual regarding interrogations of POWs
I'm sure fiend has read it cover to cover.
If this is the best the KosKidz can do to waste our time, they need to get a life. That particular war is over and the Lefties lost.
As we all know, the info we got from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed saved a lot of lives and I don't see anybody wanting to let him go with an apology.
Except maybe Zero and Holder.
And fiend
36fsfiend said:
"Actually I’m still waiting for Rabel to response that she is also upset with Bush for belittling his office and causing harm to the country and those who serve with his joke about searching for WMDs as she is with Obama."
You're a troll. If you want to be fed, get a nose tube.
edutcher,
Let me help you. Article VI, Clause 2, of the Constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Do you see that word “treaties”? The Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention against Torture are treaties.
Our Spec Ops guys are waterboarded in accordance with their training which they freely consent to.
In accordance with the Geneva Conventions, prisoners of war are a category of protected persons and as such are required to be affored a certain level of treatment, one of which is no torture.
Torture doesn’t just mean ripping out finger nails with pliers. Denying food and water, sleep and medical attention to make someone or a third party divulge information is torture.
As far as info we got from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that saved lives, the info we got about bin Laden’s courier which led to bin Laden's death was obtained without torture.
Rabel said...
"You're a troll. If you want to be fed, get a nose tube."
Simply answer Rabel. Yes or no.
I dont care what anyone else thinks, we got Chauncey Gardner in the White House whether you admit it or not. So live with it.
36fsfiend said...
Let me help you. Article VI, Clause 2, of the Constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Do you see that word “treaties”? The Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention against Torture are treaties.
And I'll help him - again.
Where does it say any treaty supersedes the Constitution?
(yes, sweetheart, I looked it up before answering the first time)
It doesn't and until the Lefties needed a political axe to grind, it wasn't regarded as torture because, as I said earlier, if it had been, fiend would be defending Pelosi and Co against charges of violating the VIII Amendment.
PS It's cute fiend thinks he can hide behind Petraeus by saying, "I think the man has more credibility on the issue of torture and its adverse effects than you". Petraeus is bound to hew to the Administration line unless he wants to do to Zero what MacArthur did to FDR.
Hey lookee.
My outburst got an Instalink, once removed.
"Made it, Ma. Top of the world."
Come and get me, Copper
edutcher,
“Where does it say any treaty supersedes the Constitution?”
You are not making sense. The Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention against Torture are supreme laws of the land in accordance with Constitution. They are not superseding the Constitution.
why is it that any post about the latest way OBAMA has demeaned the office of the presidency ends up with a comment thread about bush ?
he ain't the president anymore, folks. let's focus on the current one.
High five, Rabel!
el polacko said...
“why is it that any post about the latest way OBAMA has demeaned the office of the presidency ends up with a comment thread about bush ?”
Maybe because Ann brought up the comparison between Bush and Obama in her blog post? What do you think?
Actually, I think Bush was telling us all something with his joke. That he didn’t believe his own BS about WMDs in Iraq.
The same "BS" Democrats said back when Clinton was in office, mind you.
The “imminent threat” of attack from WMDs was the major sell by the Bush Administration to go to war in Iraq which turned out to be false.
Oddly, Bush said that we couldn't wait for them to become an imminent threat. Said it quite publicly.
As far as Saddam and Rumsfeld shaking hands, that’s one reason that we couldn't justify our invasion of Iraq simply on a humanitarian issue. We supported him while he used gas on people.
Yet, we gave him very few weapons (note that in both military actions against him, he used almost no American-made weapons against us). You know who DID give him weapons? The French. We gave him intel on Iranian troop positions. That's about it.
What threat of attack did Iraq pose to us?
More of one than Libya did. By a solid margin.
And if you cannot recognize what national interests were involved with the conflicts in Serbia and Libya, then I suggest you read up on those conflicts rather than laugh about the service of our armed forces.
There were no national interests. The only funny part is watching you twist yourself in a pretzel.
You don’t believe the prevention of genocide is not in the national interest of the U.S.? Are you an American?
Saddam killed plenty of people --- far more than in Libya. Clinton bent over backwards to have Rwanda NOT labeled as a genocide. Obama won't do shit to Syria and there is mass killing of innocents there.
Apparently, no, it's not a national interest.
el polacko said: he ain't the president anymore, folks. let's focus on the current one.
I dunno. I really do think the strategy of Obama running against the ghost of Bush will backfire the second time around, because reasonable people will conclude that Romney isn't Bush. I prefer to give people like Fiend more rope because he buys into that strategy. Just a gut feeling however.
@leslyn: Based on your unsupported assertions concerning the threat of Nazi A-bomb threats, I'm disinclined to believe you.
damikesc said...
“The same "BS" Democrats said back when Clinton was in office, mind you.”
You have to specify.
“Oddly, Bush said that we couldn't wait for them to become an imminent threat. Said it quite publicly.
See my response to heyboom.
“Yet, we gave him very few weapons (note that in both military actions against him, he used almost no American-made weapons against us). You know who DID give him weapons? The French. We gave him intel on Iranian troop positions. That's about it.”
It’s not about weapons that we provided him. It’s about our approval of his actions.
“More of one than Libya did. By a solid margin.”
What does Libya have to do with Iraq?
“There were no national interests. The only funny part is watching you twist yourself in a pretzel.”
Maybe you need to read up on the concept of national interests and treaty obligations as well.
“ Saddam killed plenty of people --- far more than in Libya. Clinton bent over backwards to have Rwanda NOT labeled as a genocide. Obama won't do shit to Syria and there is mass killing of innocents there.
Stalin killed millions.
As far as Syria, Russia is involved so that complicates things. We are working for a solution through the UN.
@el polacko: I would prefer to argue Fiend in the present on topics like, say, his anti-religious bigotry, especially as it applies to Presidential candidates.
chickenlittle said...
“I dunno. I really do think the strategy of Obama running against the ghost of Bush will backfire the second time around, because reasonable people will conclude that Romney isn't Bush. I prefer to give people like Fiend more rope because he buys into that strategy. Just a gut feeling however.”
We’re only talking about Bush because Ann made the comparison between Obama and Bush in her post.
Also, I’m still waiting for an answer to my initial question to Rabel.
Does he/she think Bush belittled his office and caused harm to the country and those who served when he joked about the search for WMDs in Iraq during the annual Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner in 2004 while our troops were fighting and dying in Iraq?
And if not, why the inconsistency?
chickenlittle said...
“@el polacko: I would prefer to argue Fiend in the present on topics like, say, his anti-religious bigotry, especially as it applies to Presidential candidates.”
Making such assumptions without actually attempting to learn the facts is a sign of ignorance.
"What does Libya have to do with Iraq?"
Other than Libya carefully and completely giving up it's nuke program in direct response to our invasion of Iraq? Not a darn thing.
Other than the hilarious fact that you think we have "national interests" in Libya and don't have them in Iraq.
Trying to explain why that is so would be extra funny for everyone involved, so I expect you to go tell me to read something again.
Making such assumptions without actually attempting to learn the facts is a sign of ignorance.
Oh geez Fiend. I'm not a stalker but let's just say you really impressed me with your stupidity a few months ago. You're almost insane in that Einsteinian definition.
hint: Google "Einstein definition insanity"
36fsfiend said...
Where does it say any treaty supersedes the Constitution?
You are not making sense. The Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention against Torture are supreme laws of the land in accordance with Constitution. They are not superseding the Constitution.
Try again. As I said, waterboarding was not regarded as torture in this country until the Lefties needed a stick to beat Dubya.
Even so, the Democrat caucus of the US Congress also signed off on it, so they'd be just as guilty.
But, of course, we don't see fiend talking about them.
Kell Sir Prize.
Hypocrisy in action.
leslyn said...
Sorry, that Amendment applies to American citizens, if it were torture, which it's not.
The Amendments apply to all persons within US custody, wherever that may be. They are a restriction on government power, not a form of territorial jurisdiction. Supported by a history of case law, and U.S. Stats. 18USC 241, 242, and 243.
Sorry, sweetie. POW. Very different part of the forest.
As to whether they were torture, submit yourself to hours of ... having your nads connected to a battery.
Khalid the Sheikh was waterboarded.
Whom exactly was zapped?
Since we're going to violate the Constitution anyway, what I don't underdstand is why we use torture. It's notoriously unreliable.
We didn't (ah, you can just tell he/she/it is getting nostalgic for the good old days of calling servicemen baby killers) and we don't.
As to whether it works, a lot of people will tell you privately the official position isn't entirely accurate.
@Fiend: I didn't write this with you in mind, but I might as well have: Tweaking Socrates
Executive Summary: You constantly roll stones uphill and can't figure out why you can't change anyone's opinion.
Synova said...
“Other than Libya carefully and completely giving up it's nuke program in direct response to our invasion of Iraq? Not a darn thing.”
Yes, but how did the situation in Libya contribute to our decision to invade Iraq?
“Other than the hilarious fact that you think we have "national interests" in Libya and don't have them in Iraq.”
You’re still not getting it. What conditions changed in Iraq after 9/11 that were not there prior to 9/11 to warrant an invasion?
"It’s Petraeus according to Petraeus.
I think the man has more credibility on the issue of torture and its adverse effects than you. Just saying."
The most amazing thing is, is if Petraeus was on the other end of a blog pseudonym, he'd actually engage in a discussion. True authorities almost always do. Particularly scholars like Petraeus. I'm always impressed with how little condescension actual authorities display compared to people who know very little but attempt to ride on the coat-tails of others.
chickenlittle said...
“ Oh geez Fiend. I'm not a stalker but let's just say you really impressed me with your stupidity a few months ago. You're almost insane in that Einsteinian definition.”
That’s not an answer about my supposed religious bigotry.
But spare the response, I’m not planning to pivot off.
"You’re still not getting it. What conditions changed in Iraq after 9/11 that were not there prior to 9/11 to warrant an invasion?"
At what point is a change in conditions an accepted and authoritative requirement for action?
Perhaps ask, rather, if the continuing and untenable situation in Iraq would have eventually blown-up had 9-11 never happened.
edutcher said...
“Try again. As I said, waterboarding was not regarded as torture in this country until the Lefties needed a stick to beat Dubya.”
Please read up on the history of waterboarding and what constitutes torture.
The Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention against Torture are supreme laws of the land in accordance with Constitution.
You do not know what the fuck you are talking about.
chickenlittle said...
“Executive Summary: You constantly roll stones uphill and can't figure out why you can't change anyone's opinion.”
I’m not trying to change anyone’s opinion.
As I have repeated stated, I’m still waiting for an answer to my initial question to Rabel.
Does he/she think Bush belittled his office and caused harm to the country and those who served when he joked about the search for WMDs in Iraq during the annual Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner in 2004 while our troops were fighting and dying in Iraq?
And if not, why the inconsistency?
Synova said...
“The most amazing thing is, is if Petraeus was on the other end of a blog pseudonym, he'd actually engage in a discussion. True authorities almost always do. Particularly scholars like Petraeus. I'm always impressed with how little condescension actual authorities display compared to people who know very little but attempt to ride on the coat-tails of others.”
What’s your point in regards to Petraeus’ expertise on the issue of torture?
Post a Comment