Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More from our armchair warrior.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • More from our armchair warrior.

    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...n_go_pr_wh/bush

    Either he jus doesn't get it, or his ego has entrapped him to the point, where he just doesn't care.
    Make America Great For Once.

  • #2
    "They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war, and they know we will prevail."
    Utter fucking bullshit
    Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

    Comment


    • #3
      The man has become so deluded with images of grandour, he has lost touch with reality.

      The only thing "at stake" is his ego.
      Make America Great For Once.

      Comment


      • #4
        No, what's bullshit is the responses to this thread, thus far.

        Do you really think that only Bush's ego is at stake here? Is that what you really, really believe?

        And, Yaks, you think its bullshit that if we don't face these terrorists abroad then we'll have to face them here?

        You're right. This is unbelievable.
        When you say to your neighbor, "We're having a loud party on Saturday night if that's alright with you," what you really mean is, "We're having a loud party on Saturday night."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by WinstonSmith@Aug 20 2005, 09:03 AM
          Do you really think that only Bush's ego is at stake here? Is that what you really, really believe?
          I think that's part of it. I don't think we'll ever leave Iraq as long as GWB thinks leaving Iraq means he loses face.

          you think its bullshit that if we don't face these terrorists abroad then we'll have to face them here?
          Yes. Unless you can draw for us the cause-and-effect by which "long-term guerrilla war in Iraq" equates out to "no terrorist attacks in the United States". Because we have already seen it certainly doesn't equate out to "no terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom."
          Official sponsor of the St. Louis Cardinals

          "This is a heavyweight bout indeed."--John Rooney, Oct. 27, 2011

          Comment


          • #6
            And, in case anybody wants to ponder how we got into this mess, and maybe cry themselves to sleep:

            http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/...l.un/index.html


            A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state's presentation to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "the lowest point" in his life.

            "I wish I had not been involved in it," says Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a longtime Powell adviser who served as his chief of staff from 2002 through 2005. "I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life."

            ....In one dramatic accusation in his speech, Powell showed slides alleging that Saddam had bioweapons labs mounted on trucks that would be almost impossible to find.

            "In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator," says David Kay, who served as the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. That source, an Iraqi defector who had never been debriefed by the CIA, was known within the intelligence community as "Curveball."
            And,

            http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1001018727

            It's a depressing case study of journalistic shirking of responsibility. The press essentially acted like a jury that is ready, willing and (in this case) able to deliver a verdict — after the prosecution has spoken and before anyone else is heard or the evidence studied. As media writer Mark Jurkowitz put it at the time in the Boston Globe, Powell's speech may not have convinced France of the need to topple Saddam but "it seemed to work wonders on opinion makers and editorial shakers in the media universe."

            The San Francisco Chronicle called the speech "impressive in its breadth and eloquence." The Denver Post likened Powell to "Marshal Dillon facing down a gunslinger in Dodge City," adding that he had presented "not just one 'smoking gun' but a battery of them." The Tampa (Fla.) Tribune called Powell's case "overwhelming," while The Oregonian in Portland found it "devastating." To The Hartford (Ct.) Courant it was "masterful." The Plain Dealer in Cleveland deemed it "credible and persuasive."

            One can only laugh, darkly, at the San Jose (Ca.) Mercury News asserting that Powell made his case "without resorting to exaggeration, a rhetorical tool he didn't need." The San Antonio Express-News called the speech "irrefutable," adding, "only those ready to believe Iraq and assume that the United States would manufacture false evidence against Saddam would not be persuaded by Powell's case."
            Official sponsor of the St. Louis Cardinals

            "This is a heavyweight bout indeed."--John Rooney, Oct. 27, 2011

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by WinstonSmith@Aug 20 2005, 11:03 AM
              No, what's bullshit is the responses to this thread, thus far.

              Do you really think that only Bush's ego is at stake here? Is that what you really, really believe?

              And, Yaks, you think its bullshit that if we don't face these terrorists abroad then we'll have to face them here?

              You're right. This is unbelievable.

              WS,

              The "sleeper cells" are already here. That's why I'd like to see our forces return to step up protection on the home turf.
              Make America Great For Once.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by madyaks@Aug 20 2005, 09:16 AM
                "They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war, and they know we will prevail."
                Utter fucking bullshit
                Agreed. This is more of the imaginary Al-Queda --> Iraq fallacy; hard to believe he's still trotting it out there.

                For those that disagree: when would Saddam Hussein's troops have threatened American cities and streets? What information do we possess that suggests this might have even happened?

                Altogether now: Iraq never posed a direct threat to America, period.
                "At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed."
                – Frederick Douglass, doing an amazing job since 1852

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by YYZ@Aug 20 2005, 03:11 PM
                  Altogether now: Iraq never posed a direct threat to America, period.
                  Of course it didn't.



                  Gotta hand it to W - he not only made world-wide terrorism worse by his incredibly moronic decision to invade Iraq, he took it to a whole new level. Kudos big guy!
                  Dude. Can. Fly.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Are you guys still espousing that there were no terrorist cells in Iraq during Saddam's reign?
                    When you say to your neighbor, "We're having a loud party on Saturday night if that's alright with you," what you really mean is, "We're having a loud party on Saturday night."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by WinstonSmith@Aug 20 2005, 04:13 PM
                      Are you guys still espousing that there were no terrorist cells in Iraq during Saddam's reign?

                      Are you still espousing that Saddam had something to do with 9/11?

                      Are you still espousing that there were WMD?

                      Are you still espousing that there aren't terrorist cells to this day in Saudi, Jordan, Oman, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt and (sadly still) Afghanistan?

                      He fucked up but good. It really is that simple.
                      Dude. Can. Fly.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I say it's the weekend and all of you should STFU, grab a few drinks and party....

                        "Can't buy what I want because it's free...
                        Can't buy what I want because it's free..."
                        -- Pearl Jam, from the single Corduroy

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by dvyyyyyy@Aug 20 2005, 05:21 PM
                          Are you still espousing that Saddam had something to do with 9/11?
                          No one has ever said that. Nice try. Totally disengenous, again.

                          Are you still espousing that there were WMD?
                          Yes.

                          Maybe if you and your ilk hadn't forced us to wait and wait and wait and wait and tell him exactly when we were coming and not given him so much time to move and sell them, we'd have taken control of some bio/chem weapons.

                          And, again, nice try if you're referring to nuclear weapons. No one said we'd find nukes.

                          Are you still espousing that there aren't terrorist cells to this day in Saudi, Jordan, Oman, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt and (sadly still) Afghanistan?
                          Yes there are. Are you saying we should go after them all at once? =]

                          When you say to your neighbor, "We're having a loud party on Saturday night if that's alright with you," what you really mean is, "We're having a loud party on Saturday night."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by WinstonSmith@Aug 20 2005, 03:33 PM
                            Yes.

                            Maybe if you and your ilk hadn't forced us to wait and wait and wait and wait and tell him exactly when we were coming and not given him so much time to move and sell them, we'd have taken control of some bio/chem weapons.
                            Ever heard of a dude named Hans Blix, Winston? Do you know who he was, what group he was in charge of, and what they were doing? Good Lord.


                            Are you still espousing that there aren't terrorist cells to this day in Saudi, Jordan, Oman, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt and (sadly still) Afghanistan?
                            Yes there are. Are you saying we should go after them all at once? =]
                            There are terrorist cells in practically every country on earth. There are terrorist cells in the United States. Maybe we should invade ourselves. Say, maybe that's how Dubya could finally withdraw from Iraq and save face.
                            Official sponsor of the St. Louis Cardinals

                            "This is a heavyweight bout indeed."--John Rooney, Oct. 27, 2011

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by WinstonSmith@Aug 20 2005, 05:33 PM
                              Maybe if you and your ilk hadn't forced us to wait and wait and wait and wait and tell him exactly when we were coming and not given him so much time to move and sell them, we'd have taken control of some bio/chem weapons.

                              I have to throw a bullshit flag on this...

                              If these weapons our "intelligence" had located were being moved...who the hell dropped the ball?

                              We did just enough recon to know they were there, and then stopped watching?

                              If he had them and started moving them, we damn sure should have known it.

                              If he was the threat that this administration would have everyone believe, why would we have ever, for one fleeting moment, taken our eyes off of what was going on over there?

                              If that is the case, then I'm still pissed...because if we stopped monitoring that situation for one moment...long enough to allow Saddam to truck all of his WMDs out of the country...given the threat Iraq posed to this country...then this administration allowed a clear and present danger to go unchecked between the time they first "discovered" these WMDs, and the time we invaded.

                              And if THAT didn't happen, then why don't we know exactly where and how Saddam shipped these WMDs out of Iraq?
                              " Look, forget the myths the media's created about the White House--the truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X