George Bush is coming to the Illinois 6th
Is the subject of an email from Tammy,
First it was Dick Cheney, then Laura Bush and now it’s George W.’s turn. That’s right, President Bush is coming to town to raise more money for Peter Roskam, because he knows he will be a rubber stamp for his failed policies if elected to Congress.Now Maj. Duckworth needs Powerful Pelosi to visit the 6th on her behalf,
Just like Dick Cheney’s visit, President Bush’s is expected to raise big money for Roskam, possibly adding $1 million for his campaign war chest. Peter Roskam’s Washington D.C. friends have deep pockets and they are willing to give whatever it takes to keep control of the House. With your help, we can fight to change the direction this country is headed in and try to raise just as much money.
Ex-U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday that the thought of California Rep. Nancy Pelosi becoming the next leader of the House and being third in line to the presidency is frightening.I don't think Gingrich is fear-mongering. It's a legit fear and a probable event. It's fair for debate for sure.
"The prospect of her bringing San Francisco values and a whole attitude on foreign policy that is, I think, an attitude of weakness and appeasement and surrender, I think, would be a disaster for the country," the outspoken Republican said.
Gingrich said keeping power out of the hands of Pelosi, the House minority leader, and other Democrats is one of the reasons he was in South Carolina this week raising money for the GOP.
On Wednesday, Gingrich was at a fundraiser for Ralph Norman, the White House's chosen opponent for U.S. Rep. John Spratt, the 5th District Democrat who is Pelosi's assistant minority leader.
To suggest that "any Democrat is for appeasement is ridiculous" and "shows how desperate the Republicans are," Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said. "We know we have a dangerous world out there," he said, but "fear-mongering is not helpful to the situation."
The former Georgia congressman said he wakes up every day worried about national security and the potential loss of U.S. cities to nuclear attacks.
"If you think, as I do, that we're in the early stages of an emerging third world war, the world is truly dangerous on a scale that I think, in a worst case, could lead to losing several American cities to nuclear weapons in our lifetime," he said.
42 comments:
How dare Peter raise money in the district! He should follow Tammy's fine example, and raise money in neighboring states.
I totally disagree that we are in the early stages for world war 3. The only way we would end up involved is if we go jumping into another country we don't belong. Tell me 1 country that can has both reason and ability to attack us. Losing several U.S. cities to nuclear weapons??? Where will all the nuclear weapons be coming from?
The problem we have in this country is that we are not thinking about the bigger picture. As I mentioned above there needs to be a combination of desire and resources for us to be in danger. For instance, Russia could nuke all of our major cities, but they no longer have the desire to. The Taliban probably would desire to Nuke some U.S. cities but don't have the means.
The problem in my opinion is that we are going after the wrong end of the problem. We arrogantly think that we can disarm every person in the world that might not like us. But instead we just create more groups of people that despise our foreign policy.
I feel that if we would go after the other end of the spectrum we would have far better success. Don't give the world a reason to hate America. And please don't give me that crap about them hating our culture or our freedom. What they hate is that we try to control their countries. If we can do a better job of being a global role model then we won't have to constantly live in fear of attack.
The reason I don't secretly plot to kill my neighbor at night isn't because I don't have access to a gun, it's because I think he's a nice guy and I have no reason to see him dead.
I wish them good luck because we're gonna need it. It's unfortunate that seemingly the Democrats fail to even consider national defense.
So is "her San Francisco values" also completely legit, non-sleazy politics, Bill? "Appeasement and surrender"? Come on, now, you must admit there's an air of desperation to the Republican smear campaign against Pelosi.
As for Duckworth's mailer, well sure Roskam can use Bush for fundraising if he wants. But if he does, Duckworth gets to beat him over the head with it. Bush is so deeply unpopular that he might have done Roskam a bigger favor by staying away...
There's an interesting rhetorical game going on here. "Appeasement" generally brings to mind Neville Chamberlain's trip to Munich in 1938, resulting in the complete annexation of Czechoslovakia to the Third Reich and emboldening Hitler to invade Poland. That analogy doesn't quite fit our actions in Iraq, because we are the occupying force in Iraq and we are in some ways the fuel that feeds the insurgency.
Claiming that opposition to the war in Iraq is a form of appeasement misses the fundamental point behind (at leasy my) opposition to the war. Saddam Hussein and Iraq were not a hotbed of terrorism -- even if it was a hotbed of human rights violations.
Other states were far more involved in creating and fomenting terrorist groups like Al Qada. We went after the wrong enemy, and diverted resources from the real threat to our national security. We have a mess on our hands now, and I think we have to be careful how we extricate ourselves from Iraq. But it's clear that we have to leave, and leave soon.
As for the real appeasement, how about diverting military forces from Afghanistan and allowing the Taliban and opium merchants to strengthen their hand? How about disbanding the CIA unit that was assigned to hunt Osama bin Laden? Those actions make Al Quada stronger; withdrawing American occupying forces do not.
Please provide any evidence that the Democrats ignore national security.
This is pathetic.
Bush pulls troops from southern Afghanistan leading to a Taliban takeover, and then Republicans have the gall to talk about national security.
They have failed to defeat the Taliban and have run away in the face of our enemy. Pathetic.
I'd like Pelosi to visit and do a fund raiser for Duckworth.
She should explain all above questions right here in DuPage.
Remember the Economist piece from Dec 2003 comparing Pelosi and Hastert's districts?
Democrats opened themselves to charges of not taking national security serious, a result of a risky (and perhaps, stupid) political strategy. Knowing that the GOP had a consistent edge on handling security in the polls, they tried to downplay the importance of it as an issue. Anyone else remember John Kerry saying in the primary that there has been “an exaggeration” regarding the thread of terrorism (then, ironically, pledging to make us “safer than we are now” from the exaggerated threat). Now, the GOP edge is slipping, but it – if you look closely – this has not resulted in a significant raise in the Dems standing on this issue. And for good reason.
Do both parties play politics with security? Yes. It’s a public policy issue, and every political party is going to play politics with every public policy issue. But the Democrats are playing the worst kind of politics with it: trying to have it both ways. They can’t decide whether to criticize Bush just for how he is prosecuting the war, or for continuing to prosecuting it at. They can’t decide if terrorism is an exaggerated buggy-man that the Republicans are using to scare voters, or a serious threat that the GOP is failing to protect us from. Which is it guys (and gals)?
Democrats may well win back the House this November, but it will most certainly be an anti-incumbent movement, not a pro-Democratic agenda movement. Because there is no Democratic agenda, especially when it comes to security.
What John Kerry said over and over and the wing-nuts twisted and distorted was that fighting terrorism should be treated with an eye towards law enforcement and investigation rather than the neo-con answer to "blow stuff up and get other people's kids killed." Of course, the London case demonstrated just what Kerry said throughout the campaign. Sound law enforcement techniques work to stop terrorism, sadly so many resources have been dumped into Iraq that we'll never know what would have happened had they spent 1/10th of that amount rebuilding a crumbling intelligence and federal law enforcement infrastructure.
But it's more fun to do "mission accomplished" photo ops on the deck of a carrier.
Law enforcement didn't work 12:16...check your history.
Maybe is Bubba wasn't busy slashing the CIA budget, things would be different.
With that said, Bush's policy in Iraq is a disaster, and as someone who voted for him twice, I'll be taking a strong look at the Democrat nominee in '08...as long as it's not Hillary.
Anon 12:16 – Law enforcement certainly has an important role in stopping terrorism, but only if it’s hands aren’t tied.
To wit: why wasn’t law enforcement able to prevent the USS Cole attack? Or the ’93 WTC bombing? Or 9/11 for that matter? Because it didn’t have all the tools it needed. The PATRIOT ACT, and it’s subsequent renewal, the NSA wiretap program, etc. If all of those were in place, then, yes, law enforcement can be an effective avenue for thwarting terrorist plots. To bad the Democrats are so concerned with taking away and/or blunting those tools.
And law enforcing can only do so much. The FBI couldn’t have toppled the Taliban. If and when it comes time to take decisive action against any other regime that threatens out national security, we’ll need the GI’s not G-men.
But my main point remains: Democrats cannot be taken seriously until the, as a party, can make up their mind about whether terrorism is an exaggerated buggy-man that the Republicans are using to scare voters, or a serious threat that the GOP is failing to protect us from. They keep sending mixed signals, and it’s no wonder they continue to get a mixed response from the American people.
GOP,
Interested you would mention the Taliban.
How is the Taliban doing recently?
...whether terrorism is an exaggerated buggy-man that the Republicans are using to scare voters, or a serious threat that the GOP is failing to protect us from. They keep sending mixed signals, and it’s no wonder they continue to get a mixed response from the American people.
That thought deserves repeating...
...and may I add there are some out there who think Bush and the GOP are the real threats... it's not just fear-mongering or failure.. but a variation on fear-mongering and finding the threat here at home.
GOP, you say democrats are so concerned with taking away and/or blunting the tools to fight crime. You fail to mention the fact that these programs infringe on the fundamental rights we as Americans possess. Wasn't the very premise behind our democracy to keep big brother away from our personal lives? The patriot act and the NSA ordeal have done nothing but allow the government to closely monitor our lives without any reason.
Call me soft on terrorism, but I will take freedom any day of the week.
You mention law enforcement can only do so much. You are of course correct as it is impossible to stop everything. But when you say the FBI can't topple the Taliban my question is who cares? Shouldn't our mission be to keep the Taliban from hurting America? That should be the goal of the FBI and the government. We don't have to destroy the Taliban. I would be fine with them living in Asia keeping to themselves. Now I know what you will say 'well 9/11 didn't keep to themselves.' We need to stop giving them incentive to act out. They remind me of an attention starved child that will do anything to get even negative attention. We have given them a world stage on which to act in Iraq. There are now significant terrorist attacks every day.
You ask where law enforcement was on teh USS Cole attack, well maybe it was halfway around the world in America...
The point I made in my first comment is this: if we take away motivation to attack us, it doesn't matter who has weapons because we aren't the target. We don't hear much about terrorists in Switzerland because nobody hates them. We need to stop trying to control the middle east and start working with them to better the world.
Bill,
Mr. Bush is cutting and running in Afghanistan against our real enemy, The Taliban, and has us bogged down in Iraq because he failed to properly assess the threat and failed to plan for the insurgency.
Sure he is a threat to us all.
As long as he fails to stop the Taliban he is a danger to us.
But you Republicans don't care about stopping the Taliban.
skeeter,
Unfortunately, the Taliban is doing better than we would all like at this point. We toppled them, and shattered them, but, alas, the fight continues.
Now, back to the (or, at least, my) point at hand (consequently, thanks for repeating it, Bill!):
Is it that the GOP failing to adequately protect us from a serious threat, or is it that they are exaggerating the threat to scare us with it? I'd argue it can't be both. But the Democrats seem to be trying to find a way.
Get real.
Nobody denies the Taliban is a threat.
Who does? Who claims that the Taliban threat is exaggerated?
The real issue is whether Iraq was ever a part of the terrorist threat. It wasn't.
The Taliban was, and under Bush the U.S. has pulled out of southern Afghanistan. Importantly, this was exactly what the right claimed about Viet Nam: In Southern Afghanistan the anti-insurgency forces had been doing a good job. We could have let them stay and let them win.
But Mr. Bush was overextended with the Iraq debacle so he pulled American counter-insurgency forces out with the result being that the Taliban has come in.
“We need to stop giving them incentive to act out.” - robbie
Okay, well, let’s look back at what their beef is with us. Let’s see what the “Jihad Against Zionists and Crusaders,” published in 1998, says are the reasons they declared war on us (ie, their incentive to act out). I’ve added my own thoughts, but tell me how you would alter American foreign policy in respect to these grievances:
(1) “First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.”
- Now, as I understand it, we were invited by the Saudis to come and help them defend their nation from the aggressive, secularist dictatorship of Iraq. And we stopped short of moving into Bagdad and occupying it after we drove them out of Kiuwait. Oh, and we BUY our oil from the Saudis (at quite a high price, I might add), we don’t “plunder it.” And I know some MoveOn types who would tell you that it's the Saudi who are dictating to OUR rulers.
(2)“Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once again trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation. So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.”
Yeah, that’s why we enforced the no-fly zones. And here I thought it was because we were tying to keep Sadaam from annihilating his subjects in those areas. Turns out, those were offensive missions, and Saddam was firing on our planes to protect his beloved people. Who knew?
(3)“Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.”
Ah, we are distracting the Muslims from focusing on Jewish “occupation” of Jerusalem, and trying to destroy Iraq. Gotta. Thanks.
In Fact, GOP, the answer can and is both.
Terrorism is a threat that should be taken seriously; sadly we're instead carrying out the neo-con agenda in the Middle East and allowing the Taliban to take hold again in Afghanistan. And yes, they are also using the real threat to create justifications for ignoring the constitution when it suits them, which does lead people to say they are exaggerating the threat.
That’s the problem with the administration and those like you who go along in lock-step with every poor decision they make. The supporters of this administration have no understanding or appreciation of nuance. Democrats, Independents and more Republicans on a daily basis, understand that what they are doing is not in the best interest of the country; they might not agree all the time on the why and the how, but they recognize the problem. The administration and the roughly 35% percent who support every move they make (about the same 35% who still think some of the 9/11 highjackers came from Iraq) have the same sets of answers for everyone who questions their actions, because after all "the decider" has decided. That's it, no dissent, no debate; a black and white world, no grey, no nuance here.
So, their only real answer is, if you dissent you're either a traitor, weak on terrorism or if you have any influence they just Swift-Boat you, but stay the course no matter how many kids come back with missing limbs or in boxes.
Somewhere Joe McCarthy is proud to see he still has such a strong following. They've certainly perfected his shtick.
GOP, when I said we should stop giving them incentive to act out I was referring to the benefit their cause has recently seen because of our actions. I am talking about incidents like Abu Gharaib, the many cases of soldiers taking justice into their own hands, and the war in the general sense.
The actions we are taking are causing us to loe the war in the hearts and minds of people of the middle east. Every time a soldier goes wacky from the stress and shoots or rapes someone, that creates even more hatred towards us. Every day that we are in Iraq that causes many in the middle east to have even more disdain for America.
I am not saying we can go back and change history and I am not really sure of the book you quoted. The author(s) are free to have their opinions. But regardless of that, I think America needs to assess whether a war in Iraq is defeating terrorism or giving rise to a new generation of it. Unfortuantely, I feel it is the latter.
What was the point of that LL?
"Some people hate us."
We know that.
Rambling on about how much they hate us is pointless. We know they hate us.
However, if you want to talk about useful idiots, I would people like you front and center.
I don't know if you recall, but THE TALIBAN actually did work with Bin Laden to attack America.
Your party has pulled America out of southern Afghanistan, and now THE TALIBAN -- Remember them, they attacked America -- are regaining control.
You know idiots, LL. You are a bright shining example for idiots everywhere.
Some people on your team don't have a clue who those terrorists are, despite the fact that Bin Laden and The Taliban have made it amazingly clear.
Why can't your friends grasp the concept that THE TALIBAN are the enemy?
Your pals pulled out. The Taliban are taking over. That is the truth.
You might at some time return to the job? That is your defense of your President?
"He ran away from The Taliban, but he might come back"?
Stop running and hiding from our real enemies.
Typical right-wing fool’s response. No one is saying terrorists don't exist; I don't think anyone on this post said we "create" terrorists, what people are saying is that we're not dealing with it correctly and have made the situation worse.
Question their patriotism because they don't toe the party line; call them traitors for questioning illegal wire-taps; have all the chicken-hawks question the credentials of anyone who served who has a difference of opinion. Right out of the Rove playbook.
Amazing how you trot out the treatment of women, doesn’t seem to bother Bush when he’s hanging with his boys from the House of Saud.
Yes, there were terrorists attacks before Bush (one imagines everyone but the 35% percent with their head in the sand understands that), in fact, there was one just over a month after Clinton took office. Difference was, the administration didn’t spend time trying blame George HW for it happening.
How dare you have the gall to suggest that you have some corner on patriotism; you’re as disgusting and shameless as the rest of the neo-con chicken-hawks. The useful idiots are the one’s defending this reckless, useless war and lining up to dump on the constitution.
What's disgusting and shameless anon is you don't offer any alternatives.
We should go back to Brent Scowcroft power politics? Keep the Saddams and Arafats in power because it's stablility?
What's your proposal here other then tell people they're disgusting and shamless from behind you'r anon mask?
Democrats aren't very coherent on what's the only real issue in this election...
You can tell us a lot about incoherence, Bill.
This is your typical drivel.
You make some wild statement about Democrats, can't back it up, and then claim the sky is falling.
No wonder you Illinois Republicans keep getting kicked around every election.
Seriously: Do you have any evidence that Democrats say that terrorism is not a serious threat?
Post some proof or admit defeat.
Baar: You are clueless. Democrats have consistently offered alternatives, but as with Murtha anytime anyone who has actually served the constitution (which is what we actually pledge to serve when enlisting in the military—contrary to the neo-con rant of our President right or wrong) suggests that the emperor has no clothes, you and the rest of the neo-con sheep bleat on about “traitor,” “appeaser” and the other smears you have no understanding of. Of course, like all the chicken-hawks who dodged service or spent their time in kissing ass on a base in Europe (or as a “pilot” in Alabama) you have no problem making someone else’s kid serve as canon fodder. All of you who have never been shot at, never seen combat, should rot in hell for suggesting that those of us who have are “cutting and running,” or “cowards” for pointing out that we were lied into a war that is spinning out of control, has gained us nothing and has weakened us in areas where we should be focused.
We’d see some serious cutting and running if any of you “tough guy” hawks faced 1/10th of what those kids face every day in Iraq.
robbie:
that's not from a book. It's the words of Osama bin Laden in 1998, explaining why he is declaring war on the United States of America.
From the Rolling Stone profile of New York's Republican mayor Michael Bloomberg:
Bloomberg, who has seen the intelligence reports and has dispatched NYPD officers to London, Afghanistan and the Middle East to investigate the jihadist threat, doesn't hesitate. Americans, he tells me, are "too freaked out" about the threat of another attack.
"There is a much greater risk from lifestyles that hurt you - smoking, walking across the street without looking both ways, not putting bars in the window if you've got kids and you live above the first floor, those kinds of things."
But he's just the Mayor of New York. We all know that clowns in Illinois have a better grasp on the threat of "Islamofascism" and "World War Three".
anon,
Murtha wants to withdraw to Okinawa...
That your plan; you with no name?
Duckworth's too?
Rupublicans for Duckworth's Larry Bodine tells me her plan is
Tammy Duckworth has a plan to get us out of Iraq: for every Iraqi soldier we train for duty, we bring one of our soldiers home.
What do you tell the last one? I think Kerry asked that question once about Nixon's Vietnamization plan.
I worked with some of the last guys out of Vietnam... check Frank Snepp's book Decent Interval and look in the index for Jim Brown and Bill Guy from Defense Audit Service Siagon. I worked with Brown later in DoD.
Withdrawl after a decent interval no way to win this war.
Ohh and by the way please stop calling the Labor Leaders in Dupage from the floor of the Illinois Senate asking them “Is there anything I can do for you down here in Springfield?” You’ve never been a friend of labor with your 15% AFL-CIO voting record.
geez, I hope Unions have the good sense to ask for favors... from anyone offering... pretending or not...
What do the Unions say in response?
I'd really like to know.
Bill,
Your post claimed that Democrats discount the threat of terrorism.
No evidence yet.
So far we have evidence of one Republican discounting it, and a few Democrats saying that we need to wind down in Iraq, but no Democrats saying that the threat of terrorism is not real.
Keep searching Bill. Or maybe you should just keep lying about the Democrats record.
Of course, we do have evidence of Bush's retreat in the face of the Taliban.
Bill, do you consider the Taliban a threat? Why do you support a President who runs from the Taliban?
Baar: You're an ignornant shill for a failed administration. A gutless scumbag; you're willing to put other people's children in a situation you couldn't handle for ten minutes. As Murtha said in the NBC interview about Rove:
"He’s, he’s in New Hampshire. He’s making a political speech. He’s sitting in his air conditioned office with his big, fat backside, saying, “Stay the course.”'
Just like you Baar. Tough guy sitting in the suburbs calling braver, better men then yourself cowards. Typical response.
And by the way, anoninimoty is often important when you have a reletively high profile job and interact with scumbags who think it's just fine to lie about people who disagree with the administration. But, I'd be happy to take you around some time to some war zones I see nearly every day that might get a little more attention if we weren't spending so much money in Iraq. I'm sure you wouldn't have the guts or desire, because as with Iraq, it's just other people's kids dying.
GOP, my apologies for thinking it was a book since thats what you said it was...
"Let’s see what the “Jihad Against Zionists and Crusaders,” published in 1998, says" - GOP
Make up your mind. I personally don't care which it is, but don't try and make me out to be the one that is incorrectly sourcing things.
And by the way, anoninimoty is often important when you have a reletively high profile job....
Relative to who?
And by the way, anoninimoty is often important when you have a reletively high profile job....
Relative to who?
LL,
The President you voted for is pulling American troops out of southern Afghanistan and the result is that the Taliban is moving in.
That's not spin. That is fact.
And now go be a good and useful idiot and vote for Republicans who are going to lose that war on terror. They are more concerned with tax breaks for the rich than in defeating our enemy. And people like you are too stupid to know that you are being used.
If you want to see a useful idiot, look in the mirror. Talk all you want about Sen. Feingold. At least he -- unlike you -- cares about defeating the Taliban.
History on your side?
You have the history of ignoring memos warning the President of the attacks on 9/11 ("Bin Laden Determined to Attack in U.S.")
You have the history of putting Gen. Franks in charge of the Afghanistan effort, despite the fact that he wanted to wage war from the comfort of Florida and despite his failures to meet with and coordinate with the Afghan oppposition militias.
You have the history of fouling up coordination with the Afghanistan militias and allowing Bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora.
You have the history of adding politics to intelligence to justify the war in Iraq -- Remember, that French intelligence got that one right and the Bush Administration failed. There were no WMD, just as the French said. There was no justification to attack.
You have the history of failing to provide armor for vehicles or men in Iraq.
You have the history of failing to predict and plan for the insurgency in Iraq that everyone else in the world saw coming.
You have the history of bogging down the U.S. in sectarian strife and civil war in Iraq rather than pursuing our enemies in Afghanistan, Iran, Indonesia and elsewhere.
You have the history of pulling out of southern Afghanistan and seeing the Taliban -- the group the worked with Bin Laden to attack the U.S. -- regain power.
Tell me the strategy of letting the Taliban come back to power. Tell me how that serves our national interest. Tell me how I am safer now that we have cut and run in the face of our real enemy.
History is not on your side my usefully idiotic friend. Crawl back deep in your hole, since due to fools like you, the Taliban is coming back to power.
Reletive enough Baar that you and the village idiots who do nothing but parrot all the right-wing talking points, and think constitutional freedoms are currently suspended, don't need to know. Assumed you wouldn't take me up my offer; all it would take is getting some Kevlar and growing a set. The 2nd probably won't happen, so much easier to talk tough from the comfort of your sheltered life. Much less a chance of gaining knowledge or having any compassion that way...the two qualities absent in the administration and among their cheerleaders.
1. Actually, with regard to the Cole, that occurred about a month before the election.
The B-Team did nothing after they took over, and even refused to discuss the matter with Richard Clark.
That was a failure.
2. If you view all the opposition to the Taliban as "Islamic radicals" then you are even more of a fool than I thought. Do some reading. Your statement with regard to THOSE GROUPS WHO OPPOSED THE TALIBAN is just plain stupid.
3. There were no WMD. You are wrong. Read some real news. That statement was just as stupid as your other statements. There were discarded leftovers from 1988.
By the way: Remember that? When Saddam really HAD WMD? And Rumsfeld went to Iraq and shook hands with his good friend Saddam? What irony. When Saddam HAD WMD: Rumsfeld was his friend. When he DID NOT have WMD, Rumsfeld attacked.
4. Yes, I would have done something about other countries. You see, I am not a fool. I believe that we should attack our real enemies.
5. If you did not see an opposition rising up, then you are just plain stupid. Everybody predicted it. George H.W. Bush predicted it. If only the son would have listened to the father.
6. With regard to southern Afghanistan: Get your head out of your ass. Really. Your statement was just plain stupid. The Tabliban IS coming to power in southern Afghanistan. Literally everyone else in the world but you can see that. Your comments about southern Afghanistan explain your entire world view. You don't have any control over facts and as such your statements are just plain stupid.
I never thought you were an intellectual giant. Now it turns out that you are far more of a fool than I could have imagined.
Here's a clue: Read a newspaper. You have gone from entertaininly mistaken to "Just too dumb to debate."
One final comment: Please tell me that you are not a product of Illinois public schools. I cannot believe that an Illinois school would allow somebody like you to graduate.
How can you argue with a clown who says there were WMD's? Even the administration admits it and yet 35% percent of the country is terminally stupid enough to keep repeating it. About the same 35% still insist there were Iraqi’s among the 9/11 highjackers. One assumes they all went to school somewhere.
And I love the circular logic of saying the "I don't remember anyone in the world knowing the insurgency was coming (!)" from the same moron who has repeatedly tried to blame Clinton for not doing enough in the build-up to 9/11; ignoring of course that Clinton never received a PDB entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack…” One guesses it’s understandable for someone who in the glaring light of all reliable evidence insists there were WMD’s to have a justification for ignoring such a vaguely titles briefing. Can’t see how anyone could have picked up on that one.
Lots of people worried that the US invasion of Iraq would lead to an insurgency, or at least an increase in terror.
Dominique Villepin in March 2003, Barck Obama in 2002, the State Department . . . .
Or how about pretty much the entire intelligence community:
The U.S. intelligence community had been divided about the state of Saddam's weapons programs, but there was little disagreement among experts throughout the government that winning the peace in Iraq could be much harder than winning a war.
"The possibility of the United States winning the war and losing the peace in Iraq is real and serious," warned an Army War College report that was completed in February 2003, a month before the invasion. Without an "overwhelming" effort to prepare for the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the report warned: "The United States may find itself in a radically different world over the next few years, a world in which the threat of Saddam Hussein seems like a pale shadow of new problems of America's own making."
A half-dozen intelligence reports also warned that American troops could face significant postwar resistance. This foot-high stack of material was distributed at White House meetings of Bush's top foreign policy advisers, but there's no evidence that anyone ever acted on it.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9927782.htm
Isn't it interesting that when people feel the need to denigate and deride a candidate, objector or non-believer in a political situation, they often call on the most unsavory of the idea's supporters to try to persuade others. There is not one thing that Newt Gingrich, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Rich Mehlman, Lon Monk, Rod Blagojevich, Bradley Tusk or any other sychophants from both parties, could tell me that I would believe. They are truly followers of all that is snide, disrespectful, rude, self-aggandizing and mostly just plain crooked in politics today.
Post a Comment