Not surprisingly, this [percentage] correlates very closely to support for the war. In other words, only the moron dead-enders who still believe Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 continue to support the war. If they insist on clinging to the fiction of Saddam's involvement, they ain't gonna change their minds on the war itself. All rational human beings have concluded it's time to get the heck out.Yes, you are the rational one, comforting yourself with made-up ideas that everyone who doesn't agree with you must be irrational. But I don't think Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks, and I support the war. I'm sure General Petraeus doesn't think Saddam was personally involved, and Petaeus -- who knows a bit more than you -- supports the war. I think there are many others.
And then there are plenty of ill-informed people, and my guess is that a lot of them are against the war because they've gotten the feeling things aren't going well and notice that opposing the war seems to be what people are doing these days. I don't think they're "morons," but many of them are probably of below-average intelligence, and I'll bet quite of few of them heard the Saddam question and bumbled into a "yes" answer.
And why are lefties so illiberal about the less-smart and less well-educated citizens? [ADDED: I'm not saying all lefties do this, but that the ones who do are betraying their values.] Aren't these the people you act like you care about when you propound your various policies? Why are you calling people "morons"? Do you not concern yourself with mentally retarded persons and their families? I'm too politically correct to call you a "moron," but I will say that your reasoning is off and your self-flattery is embarrassing as you lazily conclude that the same 33% of Americans believe each of the things that you do not.
পোস্টগুলি
২৪৪টি মন্তব্য:
244 এর 1 – থেকে 200 আরও নতুন» সবচেয়ে নতুন»I'm not too politically correct to say it. Kos is a pompous idiot and smug about it to boot.
I agree with your conclusion, Ann, except for the part where the people that Kos derides are "less-smart and less well-educated" than he is.
This post is why I love you(r blog).
He's just wrong, not a moron.
The problem with Islamofascism is that modern weapons are so good that any old group can work major havoc, or soon will be able to.
The strategy thus is based on the following fact : it takes a certain size group X to get weapons working, what with the organizing required.
Fortunately, the bigger any group is, the easier it is to detect, with defectors, spying, tracking financial data, and so forth.
Thus the strategy : no group must be allowed to grow to size X without being detected and eliminated.
So there is all this spying and tracking going on, which the NYT is determined to stop, by the way ; if you want to locate morons in the picture.
There must be, to stop groups of size X from forming, no state support for any such groups. Everybody must assist in detecting and eliminating and harassing. That's where Iraq came in. It's the first rogue country in a list to be determined, that will join the side of good in the harassment of unfriendly non-state groups.
The alternative to stopping breakaway groups from acquiring modern weapons is a war that will be decided in a few hours, when the first US city is wiped out (this is the actual problem, not losing an occasional mall or airliner, which is just a media event like every other). A better choice is the present war, that in addition gives Muslims an actually attractive choice, other than being turned into sand.
The political stink has lost lots of effectiveness for the strategy, unnecessarily. It wants to make the sand option move probable, I guess. That falls into the moron territory.
Wasn't there a poll that said something like 33% of Democrats believe Bush had foreknowledge of 9/11? I guess moronicity (is that a word?) is an equal opportunity affliction. With a little luck, DaveTM will show up in this thread to prove my point.
It's something I've noticed about many folks on the left that they have a desparate need their arguments to be not only persuasive, but irrebuttable. I think I said this back when you were on the radio show with whatshisname, the editor from some rag in Madison - their incapacity to admit the possibility of any valid position other than theirs seems to bespeak a deep-seated intellectual insecurity: they almost seem to have a need to believe that their argument is absolutely compelled by reason, ex visceribus res, so to speak, perhaps out of fear that they might be wrong if there were any rational possibility of an alternative answer.
I'm struggling to express the point, maybe someone better versed in the language of psychology can help out.
rhhardin said...A better choice is the present war, that in addition gives Muslims an actually attractive choice, other than being turned into sand.
good thought, bad understanding of physics. My understanding of the effects would say that Tehran would be "glass" like, rather than "sand" like after use of an Iranian bomb.
pardon me Ann but you left out the word "some" when referring to lefties...as in "some" lefties..not all, not "lefties" generally, SOME.
Some pro-righties got to the right conclusion by an incorrect route. An incorrect route is swallowing and maintaining Saddam's involvement in 9-11. the ONLY people who hinted at that and pretty much put it out there were former and present members of this administration. It makes reconcilliation and debate very difficult when the logic or illogic process has such glitches in it that, after 5-6 years can't be undone.
But it would be very helpful if qualifiers were used - othewise some people get all bent out of shape at the insult.
42% of Dems in a recent zogby poll (commissioned by the crazies at 911truth.org) accuse Pres. Bush of foreknowledge or at least letting 9/11 happen.
They're not just morons, but they're America-hating morons.
Also, since Mr. Moulitsas is willing to diagnose cases of mental retardation based on political affiliation and answers to a poll, I'm going to dothe same based on his photograph.
According to an article in the Scotsman (link goes to the Spluch blog, has better photos than the article, which is important for this comment to make sense), doctors have developed a computer aided method of diagnosing chromosomonally caused cases of retardation based on facial abnormalities.
The syndrome I'll draw your attention to (with relation to Mr. Moulitsas) is Smith-Magenis Syndrome, according to the illustration:
"Mid-face flattened, especially at the bridge of the nose" (check)
"Prominent, often rosy cheeks" (big check)
"Lip pushed up" (hard to tell when he smiles, but in other shots, have to go with, check)
"Prominent jaw" (another big check)
Four for four, hmmmm.
Let's see, effects:
Disrupted sleep patterns (how often does he post at odd hours?), tendency to sleep during day and wake at night (he always looks so sleepy), aggression and mental retardation (no comment).
hdhouse, that was a thoughtful and useful post.
yes, both ends of the spectrum have their idiots.
and both have some reasonable folks
as for the issue of the day:
Saddam was a bad man, who supported terrorism, harbored terrorists, funded terrorism, had some communications with AQ, had some of the same objectives, but DID NOT have anything to do with 9/11.
All the brilliant lefties never address the fact that under the horrible Bush we have not been attacked at home since 9/11.
Kos and other lefties will rant and rave about the supposed 30% of Americans who think Saddam was involved in 9/11 directly (a percentage I believe no more than the one that said however-many could not point to the US on a map), yet they say nothing about, and often pander to, the 30% or so who think that our own government was involved in 9/11.
Frankly, the 9/11 Truthers are more dangerous and more despicable than those who overstate Saddam's nefariousness.
ricpic said...
All the brilliant lefties never address the fact that under the horrible Bush we have not been attacked at home since 9/11.
actually they do. The truthers and the far leftists explain that since the Mossad did the attacks to create a causus belli in Iraq, there really isn't any AQ, nor any real GWOT, just a pretext to destroy freedom and impose fascism on the people.
Another classic entry for the mixed-up mind of Ann Althouse:
Calling someone a moron = very bad.
Calling them lame and using the word lameness all the time = completely fine.
The Drill SGT said...
"The truthers and the far leftists explain that since the Mossad did the attacks to create a causus belli in Iraq, there really isn't any AQ, nor any real GWOT, just a pretext to destroy freedom and impose fascism on the people...."
Right. And since that was achieved after the first attack - as we can see, we presently live under a fascist regime - there's been no need for further lessons.
I would really like to know where this alleged 33% supposedly is. I don't know ANYBODY who thinks Hussein was personally involved in 9/11. I know people who think it is *possible* he was involved in it, but that's neither irrational nor equivalent to believing he definitely WAS involved.
Let's analyze how all this has played out from a political perspective.
1. After a horrific attack, President Bush chooses to attack Iraq for several reasons. Let's call them Reasons A, B, C, D, E, and F, just to keep it simple.
2. Reasons A and B turn out not to be very good reasons.
3. Reasons C, D, and E are good reasons.
4. The Far Left's leading light continues to harp furiously on the fact that A and B were not good reasons and accuse anyone who still buys those reasons to be "morons."
5. Virtually everyone admits that Reasons A and B were not good reasons.
6. The Far Left continues to equate support for the war with Reasons A and B, ignoring C, D, and E, as well as Reasons F and G, and so, which have resulted from the invasion.
Really. Who are the dead-enders who won't give up the ghost?
I would bet there is at least a 75% correlation between the two though.
And I think you're completely wrong about Patreus. I'd bet a lot of money that he thinks Saddam is behind 9/11. Bush does too. That's why they keep saying it over and over (as does FOX news).
"I don't know anybody who voted for Nixon." -- Pauline Kael.
"The only people I know who apparently watch Fox News are angry leftists (and "libertarians" such as Downtown) who tell me what Fox News is saying." -- Seven Machos.
My quote is not as catchy or as likely to find its way into the social fabric, but there it is.
dtl ... I need some citations. Give me some transcripts where someone has said Saddam did 9/11. I have yet to hear it. But he sure did harbor terrorists during the Clinton years!
downtownlad said...
"And I think you're completely wrong about Patreus. I'd bet a lot of money that he thinks Saddam is behind 9/11. Bush does too. That's why they keep saying it over and over (as does FOX news)."
Well, if they keep saying it over and over, it won't be asking much to ask you back those assertions up with links to reputable news sources carrying recent (i.e. last six weeks) quotes from Bush and Petraeus, will it now.
Now don't get all Holly Robinson on us and start expecting us to do your research for you.
Is this good enough for you Simon and K????
The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html
Of course, since you're a conservative, we know that you will take these FACTS and dismiss them, because your feeble mind can't handle them.
That quote above, by the way, was from President Bush.
"Morons" are born in that condition, as in: "a mildly mentally retarded person."
People who continue to support this war are "self-made" morons and I have little sympathy for those who refuse to admit the policy was wrong from day one and continues to be wrong.
We shouldn't have gone into Iraq and we should get out. It's their country and their responsibility.
And I firmly believe history will prove this to be the case.
seven,
What did Iraq have to do with 9/11??
downtownlad said...
"Is this good enough for you Simon and K????"
No, of course it isn't. Look at the dateline, DTL: Friday, June 18, 2004; Page A09. We asked for recent, and the best you could do is three years ago. You said that Bush and Petraeus "keep saying it" - in case you're gettin confused, that's present tense, DTL - "over and over [again]." You got the "credible" prong - WaPo, not DU, well done - but you forgot about recent, DTL, and you forgot about Petraeus, which means that the answer must be, no, it isn't good enough. Try again.
Do you not concern yourself with mentally retarded persons and their families?
Actually. I don't. That's what we have abortions for.
By the way, I'll even let you off the plural ("over and over" means at lesat more than once, and by strong implication, repeatedly) prong if you can cover the recent statements by both actors prong.
Here's one of those e "moronic" comments from the right wing: "All the brilliant lefties never address the fact that under the horrible Bush we have not been attacked at home since 9/11."
We weren't attacked for eight years BEFORE 9/11.
Do you credit Clinton for that?
Simon. I don't have time to do your research for you.
Bush has made the link even recently. As had FOX news. A little Googling will find it. It's not very hard.
But just to prove your point, here's one from July, 2007.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/17777.html
The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda
But that does not mean, nor should it be taken to imply, that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. He had ties to al Qaeda, and they turned out to be stronger that we suspected, but having ties to al Qaeda does not equate to being involved in 9/11. As far as we know so far, he wasn't.
We weren't attacked for eight years BEFORE 9/11.
Well, not exactly. Rather, we were only attacked once on actual American soil during that time. The rest of the attacks were, for example, on embassies, ships, etc. So, while our embassies are technically considered American territory, it isn't quite the same thing as the two attacks on the WTC, which is in New York City, which is commonly believed to be within the U.S. (barely).
And you think it's a coincidence that Petraeus had his update on the surge scheduled for the second week of September????
I don't believe Saddam knew about Sept 11.
We know that Saddam had a lot of dealings with terrorists including Al Qaeda.
Saddam's nuclear program was stopped twice. Once in 1982, and again in 1996.
If it wasn't for the Iraq war, Saddam would be the main financier of our war with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and for terrorism around the world. If Saddam was in power today, the sanctions would be over and he would be pumping 3 million barrels a day at $75 per barrel for a gross profit of $82 billion per year. This is twice the budget of the British Military. Contrast this to an average of $20 billion per year grossed from 1980-1991. It was smart for us to take out Saddam. We are lucky that we did.
If ABC/BBC poll called me I would tell them I believed Saddam attacked us on Sept 11. After all, I hear that they know how to poll....
And you think it's a coincidence that Petraeus had his update on the surge scheduled for the second week of September????
Yeah, the Democrats set the date. They probably assumed Petraeus would fail and thought having him speak before sept 11 would highlight that they were right and Bush was wrong about the war on terror.
Except they got it wrong. We are winning not losing.
downtownlad first said...
"And I think you're completely wrong about Patreus. I'd bet a lot of money that he thinks Saddam is behind 9/11. Bush does too. That's why they keep saying it over and over (as does FOX news)."
Then, when asked to produce evidence, gives the following quote:
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."
And? That's not the same thing as claiming Iraq was behind 9/11. Read Lawrence Wright's _The Looming Tower_ or George Tenet's book and well as a number of others sources. Iraq and al Qaeda had a tenuous relationship--just how operational a relationship is unknown. All major intelligence agencies (us, the French, Russian, Israeli, and Saudi Arabian) have all confirmed this.
Now, find an administration figure that said that Iraq was behind 9/11 as your first quote attested or do the decent thing and admit you're wrong, but don't move the goalpost and hope that no one sees what you're doing.
downtownlad said...
"Simon. I don't have time to do your research for you."
It's your research. You made an assertion, the burden is on you to back it up with factual allegations. You're pulling exactly the same braindead stunt that Holly did: you make an assertion without any support and then demand that anyone who disputes the assertion provide evidence that you're wrong. It's a move that completely inverts the burden of proof, showing the movant up as totally intellectually dishonest and their point forfeited.
Like your unsubstantiated lies about my opinions on various issues near and dear to your heart the other week, you're quick with the assertion, but when someone challenges to back up your assertions with links, we very quickly see it shown that you're all hat and no cattle.
And in this instance, not so much hat, either: the story you posted in "support" of your allegation that Petraeus "thinks Saddam is behind 9/11[,] Bush does too[,] ... [and] they keep saying it over and over" says no such thing. The quote from Bush in that story is this: "[t]he same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims." Far from tying Saddam to 9/11, as you alleged, Bush said that the peple behind 9/11 are also involved in the insurgency. Your desparation is showing. Try again - or concede that you ran off your mouth with nothing to back it up.
What about the hundreds of references about Mohammed Atta meeting an Iraqi envoy in the Czech Republic?
Of course there's zero evidence to back that up. But we heard it over and over before the runup to the Iraq War.
I for one believed the administration on the Mohammed Atta account. I believed them about WMD's as well. Why shouldn't I? I couldn't possibly believe that the administration would resort to false propaganda just to start a war with a country that posed no threat to us.
Alas - I was way to gullible on that front. Not again.
I'm a little lost here. I'm not suer what we're arguing over. So far the recent posts show that Bush said Saddam had a relationship with al qaeda and that Bush says that the Iraq al qaeda now being fought is affiliated with the al qaeda who was responsible for 9/11.
The post was about whether Iraq was behind 9/11.
Saying that al qaeda was behind 9/11 and that Saddam had a relationship with al qaeda and now we're fighting al qaeda in Iraq isn't the same as saying Saddam was behind 9/11.
I could draw circles and whatnot, but I think the logic is clear without that. Not the same thing.
But, I would be curious if Bush ever said that Iraq under Saddam was behind 9/11. Or is it the game to change what is meant in order to make people agree with something they wouldn't agree with?
XWL said...
42% of Dems in a recent zogby poll (commissioned by the crazies at 911truth.org) accuse Pres. Bush of foreknowledge or at least letting 9/11 happen
This link is an obvious error. The poll [your link] was done on a sampling of Americans, not just Democrats. Nothing in the link mentions any question about foreknowledge of events. Here is the lead on the poll:
Zogby Poll: 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks; Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment
67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7
We weren't attacked for eight years BEFORE 9/11.
You repeat this same BS line of rationalization. Al Qaeda barely existed as an organization in the 1990s and was not responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing. By 2001, they were at the height of their power with 50 cells around the world and tens of thousands of trained soldiers. Bin Ladin has stated repeatedly that he is going to attack us. They have tried, but failed to attack us here in America? Why is that?
you make an assertion without any support and then demand that anyone who disputes the assertion provide evidence that you're wrong.
Lying again Simon. Just as you're a liar when you say you want to leave gays alone and favor equality for them.
I gave you TWO articles that have between them about ten references to this administration linking Iraq to Al Queada and 9/11.
But you then make a declaration that it's still not true and ask me to provide more research.
I'm not doing your job for you. If you want to make a false accusation that the Bush Administration has never linked 9/11 to Iraq, then prove it. I provided substantial information that it does. Prove to me how it's wrong.
I gave you TWO articles that have between them about ten references to this administration linking Iraq to Al Queada and 9/11.
You yourself misunderstands the link between 9/11, Iraq, and Al Qaeda. Bush has consistently said that 9/11 was a wake up call for us to take threats like Saddam seriously. Which we did, and thank god that we did.
Why did we commit 90% of our resources to attacking Germany after being attacked by Japan? Why?
But, I would be curious if Bush ever said that Iraq under Saddam was behind 9/11.
As I've ALREADY stated, the Bush has linked Mohammed Atta with Iraqi intelligence hundreds if not thousands of times.
Here's the mouthpiece of the administration, the weekly standard, on this subject.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/539dozfr.asp
Here's another link about Cheney saying the same thing.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/093003C.shtml
And if you want to keep making the accusation that it's not true, it's now YOUR responsibility to back up that charge.
If you want to make a false accusation that the Bush Administration has never linked 9/11 to Iraq, then prove it. I provided substantial information that it does. Prove to me how it's wrong.
I'm trying to see your point here but I keep faltering on the logic.
I think you're arguing like this:
Bush administration links Iraq to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda linked to 9/11. Therefore, Bush Administration links Iraq to 9/11.
However al qaeda does not equal Iraq. Thus the argument is illogical.
To say Saddam had connections to al quaeda is not the same as saying he was had anything to do with 9-11. Those who insist that these are the same thing are either incredibly dense or obtuse.
I challenge them to find any quote from anyone in the administration saying Saddam was behind 9-11. It just did not happen. But there is no denying the ties - the training camps, the haven provided to Zarqawi when he was wounded in Afghanistan.
To say we were not attacked during the Clinton administration is simply a lie.
Why did we commit 90% of our resources to attacking Germany after being attacked by Japan? Why?
Hmmm. Could it be because Germany declared war on us? And strategically it made sense to attack Germany first?
You say that Iraq posed a threat to us? How so? It was a secular country and had no weapons of mass destruction. How was it more of a threat than Iran or Saudi Arabia or North Korea?
I challenge them to find any quote from anyone in the administration saying Saddam was behind 9-11. It just did not happen. - Joe.
Yes, of course. It never happened. Woops!
If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." - Dick Cheney
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1006-33.htm
Sloan says: "Al Qaeda barely existed as an organization in the 1990s and was not responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing."
What does Al Qaeda have to do with whether we were attacked or not?
Cherry picking your facts isn't the same as picking your nose, dickhead.
DTL,
You're wasting your time.
These people are so far up Bush's ass they can't think straight.
Fen still believes in WMD and the tooth fairy.
downtownlad said...
"[Simon said DTL made an assertion without any support and then demand that anyone who disputes the assertion provide evidence that you're wrong.] Lying again Simon."
You made an assertion. You offered no support. When called on it, you offered no support for the assertion and complained that you weren't going to do my research for me. I then said that you made an assertion without any support and then demand that anyone who disputes the assertion provide evidence that you're wrong. This isn't a lie, it's on open display in the thread above, unless or until you have the good sense (if dubious sense of honor) to cover your tracks by deleting your comments.
"Just as you're a liar when you say you want to leave gays alone and favor equality for them."
Once again: an assertion without a link. Worthless. I've not been reticient about my views, DTL - if you want to pin one of them on me, link to where I've said it. No link, no credibility.
"I gave you TWO articles that have between them about ten references to this administration linking Iraq to Al Queada and 9/11."
No, you offered two articles that offer about as much support for your argument as if you'd cited the Paris Hilton sex tape.
In case you've forgotten, DTL, your assertion was that Petraeus "thinks Saddam is behind 9/11[,] Bush does too[,] ... [and] they keep saying it over and over." That is: both men presently believe that, and have repeatedly said so, in the present. A link proving that Bush linked Saddam to 9/11 years ago is a red herring: it doesn't support your assertion. A link proving that Bush linked the present insurgency to Al Queda and Al Queda to 9/11 is also a red herring: it doesn't support your assertion.
You have made an assertion, the burden is on you to prove it, and you have brought forward nothing that supports that assertion. You then have the gall to call me a liar and to demand I do your research for you.
You have revealed yourself as an intellectually dishonest fraud, and the really sad thing is that you are the only commenter here who doesn't realize it.
What does Al Qaeda have to do with whether we were attacked or not?
Cherry picking your facts isn't the same as picking your nose, dickhead.
Hmm, ahh, umm, gee...I guess you got me on that one???????
I don't give a fig if Saddam was behind 9/11 or not. He should have been taken out after we liberated Kuwait, and I'm glad someone finally did so. The first President Bush should have done it, but he didn't. President Clinton should have done it, but he didn't. The second President Bush finally did it, and I'm glad.
Assertion - Simon opposes gay marriage.
FACT - Simon opposes gay marriage
Assertion - Simon favors gay people being jailed for having sex in the privacy of their own home.
FACT - Simon favors the repeal of Lawrence V. Texas, which would immediately revalidate the sodomy laws of many states, which means gays could be imprisoned for having sex in the privacy of their own homes.
Assertion - Simon lies when he says that he favors full equality for gay people.
FACT - Simon refuses to say that he favors the repeal of Florida laws that ban adoption by gay couples.
Assertion - Simon claims I said "DTL, your assertion was that Petraeus "thinks Saddam is behind 9/11."
FACT - DTL says "And I think you're completely wrong about Patreus. I'd bet a lot of money that he thinks Saddam is behind 9/11." In other words, Simon says that I have zero right to have an OPINION about what I think Petraus thinks. Probably because Simon is an anti-gay bigot and thinks gays don't have the right to think.
FACT - Simon is a liar.
Simon is proof that conservatives block out all information that don't support their narrow worldviews.
What does Al Qaeda have to do with whether we were attacked or not?
Cherry picking your facts isn't the same as picking your nose, dickhead.
Wait.... I think I finally figured out your point ... ahhh.. ummmm... has anyone seen my Fergie CD?
The Cheney quote doesn't say what you think it says. Read it carefully. You "reality based" people live in a world of wishful thinking.
DTL - you are beyond whacked out at this point. You're embarassing yourself.
What does Al Qaeda have to do with whether we were attacked or not?
Cherry picking your facts isn't the same as picking your nose, dickhead.
I know now. This was a question in that ABC/BBC poll that is so famous.
The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. - President George Bush.
Oh, now how would ANYONE possibly get the idea that Saddam was linked to 9/11 from this quote?????
I couldn't possibly believe that the administration would resort to false propaganda just to start a war with a country that posed no threat to us.
Why did the administration start a war with Iraq if it posed no threat to the United States?
Yo Simon/Joe.
WWWWWMMMMMMWWWWMMMMWWWWWMMMWWMMM
Why did the administration start a war with Iraq if it posed no threat to the United States?
To help the Jews.
is proof that conservatives block out all information that don't support their narrow worldviews.
It is? Wow. You have just corroborated all of Simon's points. If you are going to cite Simon's statements here as proof that all conservatives are xxx..., then how much weight should we give to any of the other evidence you have cited on this board?
Your pretty thin... man...
The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. - President George Bush.
Oh, now how would ANYONE possibly get the idea that Saddam was linked to 9/11 from this quote?????
I didn't. Nor did anyone on this board. What makes you believe that everyone else did. You are grasping at straws.
DTL appears to be having a meltdown. Go have a nice beer, then nap, DTL. You would be embarrassing yourself, if you were actually capable of feeling that emotion.
Joe: "...then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." - Dick Cheney
Did you miss this part of the quote?
"...most especially on 9/11..."
Are you saying Cheney wasn't saying the 9/11 attackers weren't "based" in Iraq??
To help the Jews.
I swear I have heard this before. I think it was some book called Mein Kampf. Anyway... pink triangles, Yellow stars, what's the difference....
Joe - Looks like you're an anti-gay bigot too.
Gay people are allowed to have discussions, as I am doing here.
I've provided more than a few links that prove my assertion that the Bush Administration linked Saddam and Iraq to 9/11. That's why 1/3 of Americans still believe Saddam was involved.
You choose to ignore this valid evidence through ad hominen attacks against my character.
No either dispute what I've said or shut up. But your anti-gay attacks need to stop.
DTL,
Don't concern yourself with the bullshit.
Most here have no real defense of Bush or the war.
The party's over and they know it.
Sloan,
You REALLY need to read some history.
Sloan - You're an anti-semite, so it's amusing to hear you quote Mein Kampf. We know you've read it many times.
I'm Jewish myself, so the accusation that I'm a nazi is amusing to put it mildly.
All Cheney was saying is that al qaeda, who was responsible for 9-11, was using Iraq as a geographic base. It is not clear from that one isolated statement if he meant at the time of 9-11, or at some time subsequent. There is no suggestion that he was saying Saddam was behind the attack. And if after 6 years, one out-of- context quote from one TV interview is all you can come up with for the "Bush says Saddam is behind 9-11" meme, you have to admit its pretty weak. Or you would, but for the BDS.
"Joe - Looks like you're an anti-gay bigot too."
WTF??? You are out of your fucking mind. I don't care what you put in your mouth, your links, your arguments are all BS.
Luckyoldsen,
I predicted at the beginning of this thread that they would be unable to deal with the facts that I was about to present them.
Their argument is that linking Saddam to Mohammed Atta, or linking Iraq to Al Queada (as Petreus did today on Fox News, or linking Saddam to Al Queada, has nothing to do with linking Iraq to 9/11, and that's it's just silly for people to make that leap.
Which, of course, is preposterous.
And it's fun to see that twist into various contortions trying to make an absurd argument - that the Bush Administration never tried to link Saddam to 9/11.
Are you saying Cheney wasn't saying the 9/11 attackers weren't "based" in Iraq??
Yes. Iraq is the heart and soul of the Arab (Islamic) world. It is where Ur is, where writing was invented, and where all of the world's monotheistic religions originated.
To cure the world of the cancer of Islamic fascism, Cheney believes, and I agree with him, that a political transformation must occur at the source, i.e., in the very heart of the Arab world - Iraq. Cheney is correct. When we succeed in Iraq the foundation for Islamic fascism will no longer exist, and its doom will be sealed. Our Iraq project is based on the idea that you can't kill a cancer from the outside in. You can only kill it at its source. Once it is dead there it cannot metastisize. A democratic, free and independent Iraq will transform the Arab world forever, and provide the basis for the long term security of the United States and our allies.
Joe - Glad to hear you favor full equality for gay people including marriage rights.
I provided over a dozen quotes. Why don't you actually read them.
And guess what - Al Queada never had a base in Iraq prior to 9/11. So why was Cheney lying about that, if not to link Iraq to 9/11?
Well said.
joe said..."All Cheney was saying is that al qaeda, who was responsible for 9-11, was using Iraq as a geographic base."
NO SHIT??
But they weren't...and I find it amazing that, at this point in time, you actually believe Al Qaeda was operating out of Iraq.
And strategically it made sense to attack Germany first?
The first nation we attacked after Pearl Harbor was ... Japan.
April '42: Doolittle Raid on Tokyo
May '42: Coral Sea
June '42: Midway
Aug '42: Guadalcanal
The first major US land operation of the war came in November '42 -- Operation Torch in which we invaded ... Morocco. Yup Morocco, and we had to fight the French to get in.
Morocco never attacked us. There was no clear association with Hitler. The weapons depots we thought were there, weren't.
But it was a first key step in getting the US established in a bad neighborhood as part of a much longer-term plan.
DTL, you are the one that said we did it to "help the jews" not me.
Gedaliya: And yet another uninformed, uneducated dolt rears his ugly head to defend Cheney's contention that we had to invade Iraq to save the world.
Duh.
A democratic, free and independent Iraq will transform the Arab world forever, and provide the basis for the long term security of the United States and our allies.
How?
I thought all of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis. Silly me.
downtownlad said...
"Gay people are allowed to have discussions, as I am doing here."
You're not having a discussion, DTL, you're just huffing and puffing and blowing smoke. You're lying about me (everyone notice something about DTL's 9:45 PM comment? Right, lots of allegations, no links to support them), lying about Bush, lying about Petraeus, throwing unsubstantiated allegations all over the shop.
Hell, you're even lying about what you yourself asserted: now you want us to believe that your "assertion [was] that the Bush Administration linked Saddam and Iraq to 9/11," which of course is not what
your 8:30 PM comment said at all: "I think you're completely wrong about Patreus [sic.]. I'd bet a lot of money that he thinks Saddam is behind 9/11. Bush does too. That's why they keep saying it over and over (as does FOX news)." That was your comment: a present tense assertion about the beliefs and statements of the President and General Petraeus, an assertion you have completely failed to provide any evidence for. Instead you've relied on slight of hand, hoping that readers will forget what you actually asserted and forget that evidence about Bush's beliefs three years ago or his statement that Al Queda is involved in the Iraqi insurgency are immaterial to your assertion. But it won't work, because this is a smarter crowd than that, DTL - you're going to have to raise your game.
No links, no credibility.
Simon - This is not a F&cking disertation.
I don't have to provide links.
I know what you've said. Other commenters do as well. That doesn't change the facts.
FACT - Simon is an anti-gay bigot.
By the way, it will take two seconds for you to dispute that. Just say that you support full equality, including marriage and adoption rights for gay people, and I'll admit I was wrong. But you CAN'T which PROVES you are an anti-gay bigot.
FACT - This administration has over and over linked Saddam Hussein and Iraq to Al Queada and 9/11.
Petraeus was on Fox news TONIGHT equating the war in Iraq with a war on Al Queada. I provided MANY other links, and you've chosen to ignore them all.
Bart, I agree with your assessment. However, its also true that we occupied former British strategic points such as Iceland prior to Dec 7. Oh yeah, we also attacked a German Submarine in April 1941 near Iceland, which was followed by numerous other incidents.
And don't let all that aid to China go unnoticed.... you know the $100 million for "supplies" in 1940.
But, remember, Roosevelt wasn't the aggressor....after all Hitler declared war on us. that sure saved Roosevelt a lot of headaches.
Here's another link about Cheney saying the same thing.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/093003C.shtml
Let's examine this:
From the article you linked to:
Iraq, 9/11 Still Linked By Cheney
By Dana Priest and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post
Monday 29 September 2003
In making the case for war against Iraq, Vice President Cheney has continued to suggest that an Iraqi intelligence agent met with a Sept. 11, 2001, hijacker five months before the attacks, even as the story was falling apart under scrutiny by the FBI, CIA and the foreign government that first made the allegation.
The alleged meeting in Prague between hijacker Mohamed Atta and Iraqi Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani was the single thread the administration has pointed to that might tie Iraq to the attacks. But as the Czech government distanced itself from its initial assertion and American investigators determined Atta was probably in the United States at the time of the meeting, other administration officials dropped the incident from their public statements about Iraq.
Not Cheney, who was the administration's most vociferous advocate for going to war with Iraq. He brought up the connection between Atta and al-Ani again two weeks ago in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" in which he also suggested links between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.
The transcript from MTP, 9/14/03:
"MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.
MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/
Nice try. When asked if there is a link between Saddam and 9/11, he answered "We don't know", an honest answer at the time.
Might want to do better research next time.
And if you want to keep making the accusation that it's not true, it's now YOUR responsibility to back up that charge.
Using your logic, Bobby Petrino is guilty of animal cruelty because he knows Michael Vick.
-=Mike
How?
The fact that the 9/11 hijackers were (mostly) Saudi nationals is irrelevant to the underlying historical events that lead up to their action six years ago tomorrow. The president came to the conclusion, and I fully agree with him, that to prevent an even worse catastrophe from occuring in the future, the fundamental political infrastructure of the Arab world had to be re-built from scratch.
The question was, where do you begin such a project, and the answer is obvious to anyone and everyone with any knowledge of the middle east, the arab world and Islam...you begin such a project in Iraq.
That is what they have done, and that is why our very future is dependent on their success.
FACT - Simon is an anti-gay bigot.
Wow, not just a bigot, but an anti gay bigot. It will be hard to beat.
FACT - Downtownlad is a heterosexual gentile.
We can rightly say that the prosecution of this war was a mega-terrorist attack on the vast majority of the American people who lost out on the financial resources that were directed to Halliburton, Blackwell, et al., as the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld triumvirate privatized the war to benefit their cronies. War profiteering is a traitorous crime that the right-wingers on this blog seem not to understand or care about one iota. And that's moronic to say the least.
We can rightly say that the prosecution of this war was a mega-terrorist attack on the vast majority of the American people who lost out on the financial resources that were directed to Halliburton, Blackwell, et al., as the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld triumvirate privatized the war to benefit their cronies.
So, you believe the Iraq was was begun to financially enrich a small group of Americans who where the political supporters of George Bush?
Sloan,
You REALLY need to read some history.
I did. I read a book called "Fiasco" by some guy named Thomas Ricks. He said Al Anbar provice was "lost." whoops......
an honest answer at the time.
Wrong. It was a DISHONEST answer. Because all of those allegations were lies. And the Bush Administration had the intelligence that told them that.
So either they lied to the American people or they were so blinded by ideology that they chose to ignore the truth. I say it was a combination of the two.
ust say that you support full equality, including marriage and adoption rights for gay people....
So, you're saying that anyone who doesn't subscribe to your political agenda is an "anti-gay bigot"?
Do you ever wonder why hardly anyone here takes you seriously?
What I'm saying is that anyone who doesn't support full equality, including marriage and adoption rights for gay people is an anti-gay bigot.
Just as anyone who doesn't support marriage and adoption rights for blacks is a racist.
It's really not that complicated Gedilya.
Way up in the comments, long before dtl decided to make this thread all about him, Garage Mahal suggests my stating 42% of Dems thinking the current administration had a hand in, or at least knowingly let happen 9/11 was in error.
While Zogby doesn't mention that fact in their summary of their study commissioned by the insane, crazy, America-hating jerks of 911truth.org, they do link to the 17 page PDF of the study's details.
On page 8 of the study, Zogby breaks out the response by party affiliation.
6.3% (24 of 382) of Dems polled think the government actively participated in the attack and 36.3% (139 of 382) agreed that the government 'let it happen'. That's a total of 42.6% of "likely voters" (the poll was of likely voters) who identify themselves as Dems who are certifiably insane and think we are governed by evil thugs willing to participate (or passively allow to happen) in the murder of thousands of its own citizens.
To compare, 3.7% (13 of 362) of Republicans still believe the gov't is flying those black helicopters and working with aliens (or at least that's what I infer from their agreement with the 'gov't made it happen' school of thought) and 15.5% (56 of 362) are slightly less crazed and believe that our gov't merely 'let 9/11 happen'.
Independents are less nutty than Dems but more nutty than Republicans. 3.4% (9 of 262) of Independents believe the US gov't actively participated in 9/11 and 27.1% (71 of 262) are in the passive participants camp.
Sobering stuff, hopefully some folks are just saying those things and not believing them, cause even just 4.6% (46 of 1006) of those polled believing that our gov't could have planned or assisted in the 9/11 attacks is disturbing.
MikeinSC,
Of course Cheney could have dismissed the notion of Iraq and 9/11...but that wouldn't have furthered the administration's goals of misdirecting the American publics attention away from the invasion.
And you know that, too.
P.S. Sloan: You never read "Fiasco"...you're lying.
What I'm saying is that anyone who doesn't support full equality, including marriage and adoption rights for gay people is an anti-gay bigot.
I don't support "marriage" rights for homosexuals (the entire notion is absurd), and I support only very limited rights to adoption (only in last-resort situations).
In your eyes this makes me an "anti-gay bigot." If that's the case I wear your appellation with pride.
Downtown, its one thing to attempt to point out technical issues in Bush's argument here or there to try and discredit a particular argument. It reminds me of the theory that Roosevelt knew the Japs were coming on Dec 7.
So what.
Saddam Hussein was to most powerful individual tyrant in the world. He had totalitarian control over 25 million people and income from 3 mil barrels of oil per day. He had attacked nearly all his neighbors at one time or another and put a million of his own people into mass graves for opposing his regime. He desired nuclear weapons and had two programs stopped in the past. He held many policy makers in his back pocket through bribes and other threats. Saddam broke nearly every treaty he signed after gulf war I.
The sanctions that had kept him in line for 10 years were about to collapse. Worse yet, we had just invaded afghanistan, and saddam was prepared to support the terrorists with his oil wealth (which would be triple than what it was in 2001).
Saddam was the worst of the worst. No one came close. Iran is ruled by committee, North Korea has no cash, blah blah.
This is why you waste time on details, because the larger picture cries out for intervention. We were right to take out Saddam. Thank god we did.
What I'm saying is that anyone who doesn't support full equality, including marriage and adoption rights for gay people is an anti-gay bigot.
Just as anyone who doesn't support marriage and adoption rights for blacks is a racist.
Says the person who says we should kill the mentally retarded.
Do you not concern yourself with mentally retarded persons and their families?
Actually. I don't. That's what we have abortions for.
xwl,
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, so Zogby is suddenly a rational and trustworthy source? But NOT when they report Bush's poll numbers?
You people are such hypocrites.
I've never believed that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, and yet I supported and continue to support the war.
but that wouldn't have furthered the administration's goals of misdirecting the American publics attention away from the invasion.
Why is the administration "misdirecting the American publics (sic) attention away from the invasion"?
There is nothing "crazed" in thinking the Bush Administration let 9/11 happen.
After all, they did receive a report a month before the attack warning of a likely Al Queada attack on the US.
Personally, I think it was just Bush incompetence for the reason they ignored the report. Or laziness, since Bush was on vacation.
But I don't think it's crazed for some people to assume that Bush wasn't lazy, or wasn't incompetent. Because if that was the case, then Bush did indeed "let" the attacks happen.
Unless you are saying that Americans would be "crazed" think that Bush was competent and a hard-worker. You might have a point there.
ged,
Away from the "real" reasons for the invasion.
It's a lot easier to create a boogie man than to justify an illegal war based on OIL.
What I'm saying is that anyone who doesn't support full equality, including marriage and adoption rights for gay people is an anti-gay bigot.
If someone hears that Tracy and Tom got divorced and feels bad about it, but then hears that Tracy was also a man, and thus feels some relief and feels less bad about it... are they a bigot?
Is marriage a right? Or is it a social contract granted by society. What good would it be for gays to be married if people still treated them differently from a man and a woman who are married?
downtownlad said...
"Simon - This is not a F&cking disertation. I don't have to provide links."
Sure you don't. Unless you want some credibility, that is. You can make all the assertions you like, but you've got nothing to back it up. Not a single link. Nada. I'm off to bed, which gives you full seven hours to come up with something more than ipse dixit. Best of luck.
I never said we should kill the mentally retarded. That is a lie.
Abortion is legal. So if you choose to give birth to a mentally retarded child, it is your choice. Thus, I have no reason to give concern to those people. After all, it was their choice, so let them live their lives as they see fit. It's insulting to them to imply I should have concern for them.
Unlike you, I have never voted to deny any rights to mentally retarded people. Unlike gays, mentally retarded people in this country are allowed to marry.
P.S. Sloan: You never read "Fiasco"...you're lying.
It's nice to know about the kind of history/fiction you read lucky.
Is it right next to your Rush is a big fat idiot book?
OK Simon, please provide the links where you claim I made false assertions about you.
Go ahead - provide it.
Michael said..."I've never believed that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, and yet I supported and continue to support the war."
Well, good for you!!
Have you told Ann?
She does, too.
Golly...maybe you could date...
There is nothing "crazed" in thinking the Bush Administration let 9/11 happen.
There we have it. As Wm F Buckley is fond of pointing out, those who say A must say B.
If you begin with the premise that the Iraq war was started in order to funnel money to Bush and Cheney's pals, you must come to the conclusion that Bush and Cheney had a hand in the events that led up to the authorization for war.
So now the circle is complete...this silly little fellow DTL believes that Bush and Cheney knew the attack was going to happen and didn't do anything about it, all in order to make sure we would go to war so that Haliburton would get lots of money.
I'm still wondering why anyone pays any attention at all to this whiney moonbat. It is a great mystery, that.
And don't wuss out and provide a link from this thread.
Provide the old ones. Have fun searching through Ann's archives trying to satisfy my whimsical demands.
Actually, Li'l Butch and Big DICK, et al., never asserted explicit complicity by Saddam Hussein in 9/11...they knew all too well he had no connection to the event or to its actors, and they knew unequivocal assertions of such complicity could backfire...could, in short, be refuted.
No, they're very shrewd...they made the sort of serpentine comments as the one quoted from Big DICK...they made implied "linkages"... remarks asserting a "relationship" between Al Qaeda and Hussein...(a relationship that amounted largely to mutual distrust, suspicion, contempt, and fizzled proposals from bin Laden to Hussein to allow al Qaeda access to Iraq as a safe haven and a training ground...proposals that Hussein 86'd)...in short, they did all they could do through manipulation of language to create in the minds of the public the IMPRESSION that Hussein was connected to bin Laden and thus to 9/11...all WITHOUT ACTUALLY HAVING TO SAY SO. They did this to compel greater fear and hatred of Hussein in Americans, to soften us up, so to speak, to accept and even to actively support an attack on Iraq.
It was a masterful and completely deceitful propaganda campaign and it worked exactly as planned.
Sloan,
You're a liar.
Robert Cook,
Correcto mundo.
It was a masterful and completely deceitful propaganda campaign and it worked exactly as planned.
Why did they do this nefarious deed? What was their underlying motivation for prosecuting the war against Saddam Hussein?
downtownlad said...
"There is nothing "crazed" in thinking the Bush Administration let 9/11 happen. After all, they did receive a report a month before the attack warning of a likely Al Queada attack on the US.
Well gee, DTL - you're right! They were warned there was an attack imminent! All they had to do was figure out who, where, what and how. It's amazing that they didn't manage it!
downtownlad said...
"OK Simon, please provide the links where you claim I made false assertions about you. Go ahead - provide it."
start with your 9:45 PM. Provide links to comments or posts that I've made to back up the allegations therein, or you've got nothing. And please, don't try the incredibly lame quasi-turnaround "well, you're making an assertion that I made an unsupported assetion, so support your assertion by proving I was lying" defense. No one here is dumb enough to be fooled by that, although you're certainly dumb enough to try.
You've got a big mouth, DTL, but you've got nothing to back it up.
So now the circle is complete...this silly little fellow DTL believes that Bush and Cheney knew the attack was going to happen and didn't do anything about it, all in order to make sure we would go to war so that Haliburton would get lots of money. - Gedaliya
Wow - Gedaliya is a liar too. Here is what I actually said.
Personally, I think it was just Bush incompetence for the reason they ignored the report. Or laziness, since Bush was on vacation. - DTL
Gedaliya - LIAR
Yikes, dtl and and los, like two distant galaxies, are pulling each other into the massive black holes at their galactic centers, merging into a gigantic globular clusterf**k of unintelligible 3rd grade insults, screeching, and stupidity. Fun to watch, though it does leave quite a nasty mess.
Hope you come to the Althouse blog meetup, dtl.
It's a lot easier to create a boogie man than to justify an illegal war based on OIL.
So we went to war in Iraq for its oil? Why? It's oil was already coming to market. Your assertion makes no sense whatsoever.
I don't support "marriage" rights for homosexuals (the entire notion is absurd), and I support only very limited rights to adoption (only in last-resort situations).
In your eyes this makes me an "anti-gay bigot." If that's the case I wear your appellation with pride.
G - you missed a golden opportunity to argue that dtl hates the troops and is a traitor. You can use the same moronic logic he uses.
Sorry Simon. I said provide a link that wasn't from tonight.
Keep researching.
Sloan,
You're a liar.
What, about Ricks or you and the Fergie Tape.
Admit it Lucky.... you are in seventh grade. We all know.
Palladian,
Blow me.
Palladian - I won't be at the blog meetup. I work late and play hard on the weekends.
downtownlad said...
"And don't wuss out and provide a link from this thread. Provide the old ones. Have fun searching through Ann's archives trying to satisfy my whimsical demands."
Fine: numerous times in this thread. Ain't no bother, DTL - we have google these days. You may have heard of it. That's why it's so abjectly pathetic that you can't support your allegations about what I supposedly said or wrote with links. your lack of evidence confesses your lies.
Well Simon, if you could provide the links form the prior posts, I could provide links that prove you wrong.
But it's a royal pain in the neck to find those links and I'm not going to waste my time doing your dirty work.
Personally, I think it was just Bush incompetence for the reason they ignored the report. Or laziness, since Bush was on vacation. - DTL
How can someone so stupid and incompetent be at the same time so diabolical?
Gedaliya,
Ohhhhhhhhhh, no, no, no....oil had nothing to do with the invasion.
We're the Johnny Appleseeds of Christianity and Democracy.
In your eyes this makes me an "anti-gay bigot." If that's the case I wear your appellation with pride.
Yes - it makes you an anti-gay bigot. Which is fine, as long as you admit it.
How can someone so stupid and incompetent be at the same time so diabolical?
Bush is stupid. Cheney is diabolical. It's simple really.
Gedaliya,
Who says Bush is diabolical?
Inept, dense, incompetent...sure.
LOS: "Palladian, Blow me."
I don't fellate outside my species, sorry.
DTL: "Palladian - I won't be at the blog meetup. I work late and play hard on the weekends."
Well I expect that the blog meetup might fall a little short of hard play, but I'm going to do my best to push it over the edge, by God.
Bush is stupid. Cheney is diabolical. It's simple really.
Ahh excellent. It's like Master-Blaster. "Two man enter...one man leave..."
We need more diabolical leaders.
DTL - you're a schmuck. You steam in here telling lies and making assertions about people, providing no evidence at all, and demand we do your research for you if we disagree. You demanded I provide a link to another thread where you made the same allegations, and I did. And you still haven't posted a shred of evidence to back up your assertions. You didn't the other week, you're not going to tonight, and don't le more and say it's because you're too bamboozled by technology to search, or too lazy to do your research - it's because you're a liar who knows he's been caught out and is desparately wiggling to get off the hook, hoping that nobody notices. Everyone has. If you were an attorney, you'd be homeless. You've no credibility here. Beat it.
Well I expect that the blog meetup might fall a little short of hard play, but I'm going to do my best to push it over the edge, by God.
I'll sign on to this noble effort Palladian, and God-willing, we'll succeed in this righteous cause!
Palladian,
I don't fellate at all.
But it's nice of you to share.
Have you met Sloan?
He also does lots of sucking.
I've been enjoying my diabolical and inept tax cut these past five years.
The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda
There was a relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda, but that doesn't mean Saddam was involved in 9/11. Most of Al Qaeda had no involvement in 9/11 and were just as surprised as us when it happened.
You know, LOS, there's nothing embarrassing or wrong about being able to suck a nice cock. You seem to think that's about the worst thing you can say to a man, which sort of shows us what you think of both gay men and straight women. If there's one person here who has consistently acted like an anti-gay bigot, it's you.
Palladian,
You're the dumbfuck who says he gives blowjobs.
The fact that I don't doesn't make me bigoted or homophobic...it just means I'm straight.
Did Sloan call yet?
This reminds me of that great line from the movie "Good Morning Vietnam," a line that seems particularly apt for our friend "Luckyoldson" (I paraphrase here):
He needs a blow job more desperately than any white man in history
Gedaliya,
Maybe you can explain that one to everybody.
Rep. Wexler: I am skeptical General, more importantly the American people are skeptical because four years ago very credible people while in uniform and not in uniform came before this Congress and sold us a bill of goods that turned out to be false. And that’s why we went to war based on false pretense to begin with.
This testimony today is eerily similar to the testimony the American people heard on April twenty eighth nineteen sixty seven from General William Westmoreland, when he told the American people–America was making progress in Vietnam.
LOS,
Good to know you are still trying to get someone to pay attention to you and service you. I turned you down the other day and now you have had a couple more turndowns. You might want to check out your deodorant and take a shower and try again. Better yet, call DTL. He is up for that or so he says. This could be the start of a beautiful relationship for you. The two of you could walk off into the sunset and, hopefully, never be heard from again.
Oh, Dick...and I do mean, Dick.
Can't find anybody to play?
Too bad.
Blow somebody else.
I'm reading this blog for the first time at the home of a friend who comments here occasionally.
I notice that the guy calling himself luckyoldson is a real son of a bitch (sorry about his lover/mom), and a complete moron. I can call him that because I'm liberal and I oppose our involvement in Iraq. But this luckyoldson asshole is an idiot. What does he mean we weren't attacked for eight years before 9/11? Doesn't that fucker remember the USS Cole?
The best thing luckyoldson and Kos and the people like them can do is either shut up or off themselves. They ruin it for those of who are serious about these issues. Fucking morons.
LOS,
I am not the one who is constantly trying to get somebody to blow him. You are.
I was just trying to help you out in a difficult situation since you obviously can't get anyone interested in you. You try to sublimate by telling them to blow you on the off chance that someone will. You lose, sucker.
As a European, I love the comments on this blog. Is this supposed to be sophisticated thinking displayed on the blog of a Law Professor? Whether stupid American Fascists or supposed Leftists here, you all write like politically-inclined 10-year-olds in my country. The grotesque sexual taunts and unbelievable arguments here about which came first, the Chicken or al-Quaeda, would be funny if I heard them on a school yard. Reading them here among seemingly high-level Americans is sobering and confirms everything I know about how stupid you really are.
Yes, George Bush lied, and the United States should die for his sins.
The United States, the most contemptible, disgusting nation in history, is about to be defeated militarily one again. Your soldiers are very good at drinking our beer and fucking our women here in Germany, but put them up against a real enemy, and they can not tie their shoelaces. Of course they can't tie them anyway, because they are so fat.
And your soldiers richly deserve your leaders, especially «President» Bush, the biggest moron, other than some inbred Hapsburg or Romanow, ever to lead a major country.
Your General Petreus is also saying what has been written for him. What he is really wondering about is whether your money will be worth anything when he retires. Perhaps he will be in the situation, like a Russian general, of having to sell some missiles or cannons to keep his income. By the time you get through with your fantastic adventures in Baghdad, worthy of something from the Arabian Nights, your country will be bankrupt. There will be no possibility of replacing everything you have squandered, because your economy will be wrecked.
You may stay in Iraq and slowly bleed your miserable little Army to death and spend all your money.
You may leave Iraq and demonstrate once-and-for-all that the United States is indeed a Paper Tiger.
There is nothing you can do. You lose.
Your President Bush is brilliant. It is a well-known theory of history that it is a mistake to ascribe the larger events to any single individual. Perhaps that is true, but with Bush you have someone who through the force of no intellect has managed to push the United States right up to the edge of that Dustbin of History we all have heard about.
There is no military engagement of any imaginable kind that you can win. You have not won a war in 62 years, and you only won the last one because the Russians were willing to sacrifice themselves in their millions. You have the weapons to explode things and kill people, especially innocent civilians, but you will never be able again to use them to achieve any political goals.
The end of nationalism and the Nation-State is upon us all, except you Americans insist on rampaging about, behaving as if it is still 1890. The breakdown of Nation-States in the modern world is almost inevitable. Those who do not look past the Nation-State will suffer political and economic isolation and irrelevancy.
So, when the United States finally breaks up or becomes unimportant, many, if not most of us in Europe will say, Good Riddance.
OMG--Cedarford has hacked Downtownlad's Blogger account!
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. - President George Bush.
Oh, now how would ANYONE possibly get the idea that Saddam was linked to 9/11 from this quote?????"
I have no idea, since the quote mentions nothing about 9/11.
Let's see if I can give you an example. "Nicole Brown Simpson had a relationship with OJ Simpson." Does that mean that one should get the idea that she was linked to her own murder (beyond being the victim, that is)? Of course not.
Here is how someone would give the impression that Iraq was behind 9/11: "Iraq was directly involved in 9/11." But no one is saying that.
I still am very amused, though, at those who are mocking the idea that a large percentage of Americans think Iraq was behind 9/11 while simultaneously bragging about a large percentage of Americans who think our own government was behind 9/11. Cognitive dissonance doesn't seem to faze them, at all.
The United States "the most contemptible, disgusting nation in history"? Sieg Heil, eh Dieter? Have you forgotten the mustache that lurks in your nation's not so distant past? Tell me, mein Herr, if you live to see the United States fall, who will be around to pull you, yet again, from the ashes of your own making? There still lives a time in the memory of many humans, when your nation nearly destroyed the world. Many of us have not forgotten that, and do not delude ourselves into believing that the decidedly Teutonic evil that caused one of the nightmares of history doesn't still reside in the hearts of some of your countrymen. This is the reason why many of us here in the US do not want to be a part of any organization that puts us in danger of having to cede our sovereignty to Europeans who are but a few short generations removed from peasants stooping to lick the gilded heels of kings.
Meine freunde, we have also not forgotten that many of the men who attacked our nation on this day six years ago, including their immediate ringleader, called your country home. Although your tellingly impotent fantasy of seeing the destruction of the United States may stoke whatever candle of nationalistic pride burns in your breast, I'm afraid it is what it is- a fantasy. But there exists a very real possibility that we in the US may one day watch your country and your continent yield to the sharp scimitar and crescent moon, partly due to the capitulation and impotence of people like you. I don't give a fig what happens to you and your ilk; die in a puddle of your thin blood for all I care. But I also know that there are a great many fine people in Germany and elsewhere in Europe that understand my nation and have friendly feelings toward us, if not always agreement. It is these people that I do not wish to see fall under the shadow of a minaret. I pray that they have the courage to defend themselves from enemies without and within.
And as for our soldiers "fucking your women", well Dieter, what can I say? Aside from the fact that many American soldiers are quite sexually irresistible, you might have more luck keeping the fräulein interested if you could get it up once in a while.
Furthermore:
ricpic said...
All the brilliant lefties never address the fact that under the horrible Bush we have not been attacked at home since 9/11."
Yeah well Ricpic I get up every morning and sprinkle magic dust in my back yard to ward off elephants and you know what? I haven't had an elephant ever show up in my back yard. Amazing.
ohhhh and Sloanasaurus...i've read this entire thread and I have to tell you kiddo, you really really suck both as a writer and thinker (sic!).
Wow. Glad I missed this "debate."
I did have a moment of convulsive laughter when the enlightened downtownlad said Bush invaded Iraq "to help the Jews."
I realize, it reeks of Mein Kampf and the stab-in-the-back propaganda, and it is an incredibly revealing slip showing the decadence of the left.
But that wasn't the first thing that crossed my mind. My first thought was: The war "helped the Jews?" Which Jews? Jews here in Los Angeles? They benefited from this war? How? Are they driving nicer cars? Free desserts at Jerry's Deli? Extra slots for their kids to get into Yale? What was he even talking about?
downtownlad is not worth anyone's time. I've noticed he's driven most of the smarter and more knowledgable left commenters off the site. They don't want to have to defend this guy's half-baked posts, and I wouldn't either.
Your soldiers are very good at drinking our beer and fucking our women here in Germany, but put them up against a real enemy, and they can not tie their shoelaces. Of course they can't tie them anyway, because they are so fat.
American soldiers kicked your ass twice buddy, and saved the rest of Europe from your twisted leaders.
As a European, I love the comments on this blog. Is this supposed to be sophisticated thinking displayed on the blog of a Law Professor? Whether stupid American Fascists or supposed Leftists here, you all write like politically-inclined 10-year-olds in my country.
Heh. I love it when Euro's try to play their "sophisticated" card. Its ironic on so many different levels. Esp this one, who then proceeds to ignorantly bash America like a politically-inclined 10-year-old. Rich.
Then Lucky & DTL get all confused about what Bush and Cheney said, demonstrating why they are incapable of understanding why we are in Iraq and what the mission really is. I always believed their opposition was in bad faith, but after reading this thread, its more likely they are just too dumb to get it.
Kos: Not surprisingly, this [percentage] correlates very closely to support for the war. In other words, only the moron dead-enders who still believe Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 continue to support the war.
Poor logic: "30% believe X, 30% support Y - these must be the same people" [false]
What an idiot.
I support the war and don't believe Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. There is simply no evidence of it.
Why are you calling people "morons"? Do you not concern yourself with mentally retarded persons and their families?
One thing favoring moron is that cretin has tricky-to-remember spelling issues.
Issues that don't come up with lesbian, for some reason.
A stand-up comic from the 70s said that we're all so politically correct these days. He had done Italian jokes and the Italians complained. He had done Polish jokes and the Polish people had complained. So he went to moron jokes, and now the morons are complaining.
In the 70s, that was merely a good joke. Today, the punch line assimilates itself into the setup.
Have you forgotten the mustache that lurks in your nation's not so distant past?
Cicero, first oration against Cataline, right?
Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?
There is nothing "crazed" in thinking the Bush Administration let 9/11 happen.
After all, they did receive a report a month before the attack warning of a likely Al Queada attack on the US.
Personally, I think it was just Bush incompetence for the reason they ignored the report. Or laziness, since Bush was on vacation.
The intel also said that they were scouting federal buildings in NYC. Since no federal building in NYC was hit, it's clear that action was taken on the intel provided.
The United States, the most contemptible, disgusting nation in history
As long as Germany exists, that is clearly impossible.
-=Mike
Now comes ze part on Schprockets vhen ve troll.
Frankly I think there should be a rule about blogging. You post your email and the truth about you before you can blog. No more of this anon crap. that is just being a coward. if you think it enough to say it in print then you should damn well be strong enough to stop hiding.
i don't take anyone who is without a verifiable ID seriously and no one else should either.
LOL. I love the way Dieter showed up and changed the subject from blowjobs to Nazis. It's so internet.
It's deja vu all over again!
"No more of this anon crap."
Somebody tell Mitt Romney.
Ann Althouse said...
"LOL. I love the way Dieter showed up and changed the subject from blowjobs to Nazis. It's so internet."
Yeah, and he even threw in a variant of the "you a law prof" meme! ("Is this supposed to be sophisticated thinking displayed on the blog of a Law Professor?")
ohhhh and Sloanasaurus...i've read this entire thread and I have to tell you kiddo, you really really suck both as a writer and thinker (sic!).
Thanks hd. I always welcome a personal attack from you. It brightens my day to know I wasted your time.
I haven't had an elephant ever show up in my back yard. Amazing.
I don't recall any terror tapes made by elephants either?
Dieter has made my day with that absurd rant.
Germans. So sophisticated. If only you guys could have been in charge for the last 100 years. Think of what the world would be...
God! There was so much sickness there that I didn't really notice, you, a law professor!
Your first you, a law professor crazed America-hating German who wants the United States destroyed, Althouse. That's something. You are truly international now.
On the off-chance that we haven't left the subject entirely... the nefarious BushCo plot to convince Americans that Saddam was involved in 9/11 was such a success that the percentage who believe it peaked immediately after 9/11 and has been declining ever since.
Sloanasaurus said...
"Thanks hd. I always welcome a personal attack from you. It brightens my day to know I wasted your time."
Then thank me every day. You always waste my time.
Palladian is our hero with his perfect rejoinder to the German hater. Scary, though, is that too many American leftists would agree with his insane, dangerously distorted take on America and world history.
Speaking of, I have a present for all of us to save cyber column inches and lefty LOS from having to type his fingers to the bone on account of his thoughtful, well-articulated positions. All he has to do is type the letter of the appropriate subtheme, and the rest of us could keep the list handy:
A) You’re a moron, moron.
B) You’re a chickenhawk, moron.
C) Read a book sometime, moron. I’ve read one, you moron.
D) You watch Fox, don’t you, moron?
E) I have a secret vile crush on Hannity and Fox sitcoms go over my head, you moron.
F) You’re a rightwing moron, moron.
G) Do a (sex act) on my very lonely member, moron.
H) I meant "you homo", moron.
I) I read Weekly Reader, a “periodical,” you moron.
J) You go to the Creation Museum, don’t you, you createnus moron?
K) Bush is bad, teh war is bad, and they’re both brainless morons just like you, you moron.
Excellent post Jane. I will keep your list handy.
Then thank me every day. You always waste my time.
I do it to support our troops. It's part of a grand Rovian scheme.
Dieter has made my day with that absurd rant.
Maybe he is still disgruntled over the influx of low wage East Germans taking his jobs.
Do you not concern yourself with mentally retarded persons and their families?
DTL said Actually. I don't. That's what we have abortions for.
DTL said I'm Jewish myself, so the accusation that I'm a nazi is amusing to put it mildly.
Ironic is the word I was thinking myself.
Mentally retarded, Jewish, Gay bigot. HD pulls off a self-loathing hat trick in one thread.
Scary, though, is that too many American leftists would agree with his insane, dangerously distorted take on America and world history.
Yes, as evidenced by all the lefty posters who immediately joined in agreement with dieter.
MadisonMan said...
"Yes, as evidenced by all the lefty posters who immediately joined in agreement with dieter."
who did that madisonman? Can't be sloanasaurus..he's too busy cleaning the crumbs from his breakfast tray.
Maybe he is still disgruntled over the influx of low wage East Germans taking his jobs.
More likely those Polish plumbers. Nothing irks them more than some untermenschen doing jobs good Deutscher jungen won't do since it cuts into holiday time.
Wow, it's pretty amazing what Ann allows on her blog, considering that she banned me for merely pointing out her incredibly weak arguments. But blow jobs and bigots are fine by her!
What is obvious is that you did not like being called out for your statements about Mr. Greenwald's posts, which are, in your words, "incredibly boring and windy. Maybe he actually can't understand things that aren't blathered about at great length."
I can only imagine how you grade your student's papers: "This is too thorough! You have examined this argument at every possible angle, and it has exhausted me! F! Ugh!"
The blog meetups for this group must be an intellectual stew!
For as long as this remains up, let me just say, how's that egg salad challenge going?
Danny: "...considering that she banned me for merely pointing out her incredibly weak arguments."
You sure that's why you were banned and not because of your gratuitous personal insults?
Top Republican Questions Iraq Strategy
Editorials Nationwide Criticize First Day Of Testimony
Ambassador Crocker's Testimony At Odds With Recent Comments
How The White House Used 9/11 To "Shred The Constitution"
jane,
You've never addressed or responded to my points regarding the Petraeus testimony being at odds with factual evidence and his previous statements
You can play with your right wing friends all you want, but a substantive defense or argument would be welcome.
This has always been my point: Unless one agrees with the majority of the right wing Bush supporters here, any argument put forth is derided or ignored.
And that's exactly why the Republicans are in deep shit and will get blown out in 2008.
Most of America knows when they've been conned and they won't stand for it anymore.
You never answered my questions to you first. Allow me to repost:
hdhouse,
This is kindergarten stuff and you and Lucky are in the back of the class acting up because you don't understand the numbers your teach is explaining. I wasn't asked "very specific questions" by LOS (6:39PM) until AFTER Lucky Loser was asked very specific questions by me (6:28PM). The backward looking inane points- not questions (5:48PM)- he posed earlier on were to just ANYBODY-- I was not even hinted at as being the one to address them.
Read, hdhouse. Read. You and lefty Lucky need to practice reading for comprehension. And practice counting on your fingers and toes to grasp the concept of numbers better. Here's a hint: 6:28 comes BEFORE 6:39.
9:14 AM
And lefty Lucky didn't answer a single one of my questions WHICH CAME FIRST. What is it with you guys-- do you think you don't have to answer questions put to you by a woman, or is it that you were both born into a class that ignores others except for their needing to jump to your commands?
9:19 AM
IOW, Lucky, I specifically asked you questions first which you did not answer. As a rule, when I pose points in my commentary addressed to no one in particular, I don't collar you and only you for not answering the non-interrogative points.
"You sure that's why you were banned and not because of your gratuitous personal insults?"
Meade, if you can point out any, be my guest. Ann knows that's not the case.
But hypocritically, this site is filled with gratuitous insults, from the top on down.
Jane
Your list is spot on, but I have a better approach: I just cast a cold eye & pass by anything from those guys. Tho, alas, we sometimes reach a Gresham’s Law of blogging with the sheer number of such, um, moronic posts.
Then I read Palladian’s eloquent reply to Dieter’s smug “all you Americans are beneath us Europeans”, rhhardin’s reference to its Ciceronian origins or inspiration, & Palladian’s reply in Latin which reply applies with equal fury to the trolls here. So I keep coming back. (N.B. I didn’t check rrh’s citation or Palladian’s original Latin, but which, when I translate - How much longer will you mock us with your frantic rage? - seems about right.)
Another in the just the punchline series.....Clamo, clamatis, omnes clamamus pro glace lactis
LOS said,
This has always been my point: Unless one agrees with the majority of the right wing Bush supporters here, any argument put forth is derided or ignored.
That's your biggest lie. You have pointed out on numerous occasions that you are not here to argue rather your goal is to disrupt and agitate. Don't go all lucid on me now, keep ignoring questions others present and by all means keep up the name calling.
Well, its morning now, and as I stumble downstairs I begin to see the wreckage of last night's party. Pizza boxes on the floor, beer cups with cigarette butts, vomit on the couch, the tipped over keg in the back yard, a house plant broken on the kitchen floor, someone passed out on the bathroom floor. Yea, quite a blow out.
Stumble into the spare bedroom, and there's the four of them, two on the bed, two on the floor. The sheet is over Simon and LOL. But DTL has his pants around his ankles and Sloan's face can't be seen for the underwear over his head.
Yea, quite a party Ann. You left the house for the evening and look what happened when you didnt give specific instructions on who could come over and how late they could stay. Yes, I know they are almost grown up now, but that does not excuse your lack of oversight by not providing a chaperone.
And wait till the neighbors call.
Don't forget the German guy trying to stuff another Jew into the oven... while he lectures us about the morality of nation-states.
I think the german guy left when he saw the keg was empty and everyone else had disappeared into the bedroom with the jar of vaseline.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন