Think ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN will report this?
Naaa...there is no liberal bias.
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../511160346/1021
Full Version: Miz Hillary hosts B'day party for Byrd
Ole' Hill and other Dem female senators fete Sen. "KKK Wizard" Byrd on his birthday.
Think ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN will report this?
Naaa...there is no liberal bias.
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../511160346/1021
Think ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN will report this?
Naaa...there is no liberal bias.
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../511160346/1021
QUOTE(stuckincincy @ Nov 16 2005, 04:27 PM)
Ole' Hill and other Dem female senators fete Sen. "KKK Wizard" Byrd on his birthday.
Think ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN will report this?
Naaa...there is no liberal bias.
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../511160346/1021
[right][snapback]505044[/snapback][/right]
Think ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN will report this?
Naaa...there is no liberal bias.
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../511160346/1021
[right][snapback]505044[/snapback][/right]
A little slow on the uptake today, are you? That news is 2 days old.
I guess Americans must just be more concerned about a president who lied us into a war, money-laundering indictments, and White House staff indictments to get too worked up over a birthday party.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5111300857.html
QUOTE(Campy @ Nov 16 2005, 05:03 PM)
A little slow on the uptake today, are you? That news is 2 days old.
I guess Americans must just be more concerned about a president who lied us into a war, money-laundering indictments, and White House staff indictments to get too worked up over a birthday party.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5111300857.html
[right][snapback]505079[/snapback][/right]
I guess Americans must just be more concerned about a president who lied us into a war, money-laundering indictments, and White House staff indictments to get too worked up over a birthday party.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5111300857.html
[right][snapback]505079[/snapback][/right]
I guess I'm slow because the unbiased media didn't talk about it? So you are OK with the excoriating of Lott but not Byrd?
PS - President didn't lie, unless you think the Dem luminaries did, too, or you have questions about the quality of information that the Clinton administration left for the next guy.
Of course, that the murderer Sadaam is out is of no consequence. Better he still be there?
Don't forget Bill's 1998 Iraqi Freedom Act, either. Or was Bill misled?
QUOTE(stuckincincy @ Nov 16 2005, 05:28 PM)
I guess I'm slow because the unbiased media didn't talk about it?
Or more than likely it's because it didn't show up on your GOP talking points until today. QUOTE
PS - President didn't lie, unless you think the Dem luminaries did, too, or you have questions about the quality of information that the Clinton administration left for the next guy.
I don't recall Clinton invading Iraq. QUOTE
Of course, that the murderer Sadaam is out is of no consequence. Better he still be there?
Murderer? He was Reagan and Rummy's best friend in the 80's. I wonder what happened?QUOTE
Don't forget Bill's 1998 Iraqi Freedom Act, either. Or was Bill misled?
[right][snapback]505101[/snapback][/right]
And again, leaning on a country's government through diplomacy by showing them a resolution to demonstrate we mean business doesn't bring over 2000 Americans home in body bags. [right][snapback]505101[/snapback][/right]
We're cleaning out the office, getting ready for our move to the new building. I came across a map showing all the Iraqi chemical weapons storage facilities as known in the beginning of 2002. It's marked SECRET/NOFORN. I'm not tossing it out, I'll have it shipped to the new building. I'm trying to find out now if it's been de-classified yet. It's really a nice map, about 2 1/2 by 4 feet. If it's been de-classified, I'm thinking of having it framed and hang in my home office, just as a collector's item. What do you think it might be worth on E-Bay some day?
Point is, as hard as anyone wants to push it, nobody lied. As with anything else that EVER happens in either government or even business, some people saw what they wanted to see. From the lowest levels to the highest. Whether it was truly the primary reason for invading Iraq or not, I still can't believe that after all this time there are people who actually think a Government would commit to a war based on a premise they honestly knew to be untrue. Get a grip, folks.
Point is, as hard as anyone wants to push it, nobody lied. As with anything else that EVER happens in either government or even business, some people saw what they wanted to see. From the lowest levels to the highest. Whether it was truly the primary reason for invading Iraq or not, I still can't believe that after all this time there are people who actually think a Government would commit to a war based on a premise they honestly knew to be untrue. Get a grip, folks.
QUOTE(Campy @ Nov 16 2005, 05:36 PM)
Or more than likely it's because it didn't show up on your GOP talking points until today.
Don't be absurd.
I don't recall Clinton invading Iraq.
No - focus groups said no. wouldn't want to hurt popularity and try to nip threats in the bud, after all.
Murderer? He was Reagan and Rummy's best friend in the 80's. I wonder what happened?
I don't recall the Democratic-led Congressional outrage. Recall Jimmie and Iran.
And again, leaning on a country's government through diplomacy by showing them a resolution to demonstrate we mean business doesn't bring over 2000 Americans home in body bags.
[right][snapback]505107[/snapback][/right]
Don't be absurd.
I don't recall Clinton invading Iraq.
No - focus groups said no. wouldn't want to hurt popularity and try to nip threats in the bud, after all.
Murderer? He was Reagan and Rummy's best friend in the 80's. I wonder what happened?
I don't recall the Democratic-led Congressional outrage. Recall Jimmie and Iran.
And again, leaning on a country's government through diplomacy by showing them a resolution to demonstrate we mean business doesn't bring over 2000 Americans home in body bags.
[right][snapback]505107[/snapback][/right]
Tell me about Wilson and Roosevelt and Truman and Johnson.
QUOTE(Ghost of BiB @ Nov 16 2005, 05:40 PM)
Whether it was truly the primary reason for invading Iraq or not, I still can't believe that after all this time there are people who actually think a Government would commit to a war based on a premise they honestly knew to be untrue.
[right][snapback]505109[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]505109[/snapback][/right]
Two words:
Nixon
Laos
But on the other hand, you may hold our president in higher esteem than I do.
QUOTE(Ghost of BiB @ Nov 16 2005, 02:40 PM)
We're cleaning out the office, getting ready for our move to the new building. I came across a map showing all the Iraqi chemical weapons storage facilities as known in the beginning of 2002. It's marked SECRET/NOFORN. I'm not tossing it out, I'll have it shipped to the new building. I'm trying to find out now if it's been de-classified yet. It's really a nice map, about 2 1/2 by 4 feet. If it's been de-classified, I'm thinking of having it framed and hang in my home office, just as a collector's item. What do you think it might be worth on E-Bay some day?
Point is, as hard as anyone wants to push it, nobody lied. As with anything else that EVER happens in either government or even business, some people saw what they wanted to see. From the lowest levels to the highest. Whether it was truly the primary reason for invading Iraq or not, I still can't believe that after all this time there are people who actually think a Government would commit to a war based on a premise they honestly knew to be untrue. Get a grip, folks.
[right][snapback]505109[/snapback][/right]
Point is, as hard as anyone wants to push it, nobody lied. As with anything else that EVER happens in either government or even business, some people saw what they wanted to see. From the lowest levels to the highest. Whether it was truly the primary reason for invading Iraq or not, I still can't believe that after all this time there are people who actually think a Government would commit to a war based on a premise they honestly knew to be untrue. Get a grip, folks.
[right][snapback]505109[/snapback][/right]
I don't think that is most people's problem with it, or hardly any people's problem with it. That's not what I think and I don't know anyone who thinks that they knew all of the intelligence was bullshitt and still produced it.
My problem with it, and I believe that a lot if not most people's problem with it, was they took all the very bad stuff, spoke about it like it was fact, intentionally didn't say or even imply that there were any dissenters in this opinion, or any questioning of it by the intelligence community, took the worst case scenarios and scared the public into being supportive of the war. They convinced people if they didnt do this, doom was near. In effect, that is lying without technically lying because I don't believe they believed doom was near. They just wanted Saddam out and believed he had WMD. I also believe if they didn't do it this way, the vast majority or even the simple majority of the public would never have been behind the invasion at all, and they may not have been able to pull it off without this. So this was, in effect, lying without lying, too. Because I think they knew this clearly.
I think they absolutely believed 100% that Saddam had WMD. But they had no proof of it, and they knew they had no proof of it. So they misled the public without ever officially lying figuring everything would be fine when they found it. But they bet and lost.
QUOTE(Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog @ Nov 16 2005, 06:15 PM)
I think they absolutely believed 100% that Saddam had WMD. But they had no proof of it, and they knew they had no proof of it. So they misled the public without ever officially lying figuring everything would be fine when they found it.
Well said.QUOTE
But they bet and lost.
[right][snapback]505153[/snapback][/right]
Bush is the e-dog of American politics.[right][snapback]505153[/snapback][/right]
QUOTE(Campy @ Nov 16 2005, 07:18 PM)
Well said.
Bush is the e-dog of American politics.
[right][snapback]505159[/snapback][/right]
Bush is the e-dog of American politics.
[right][snapback]505159[/snapback][/right]
Go do it better, Campy.
QUOTE(Campy @ Nov 16 2005, 05:36 PM)
I don't recall Clinton invading Iraq.
[right][snapback]505107[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]505107[/snapback][/right]
Really? I recall lots of bitching and creebing over Clinton's repeated "acts of aggression" over Iraq.
Oh, but that was invading their air space and bombing them. Big difference...
QUOTE(Ghost of BiB @ Nov 16 2005, 08:06 PM)
Go do it better, Campy.
[right][snapback]505259[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]505259[/snapback][/right]
Touch a nerve did I?
I'm afraid I'm not nearly corrupt enough for the job.
QUOTE(Crap Throwing Monkey @ Nov 16 2005, 08:22 PM)
Really? I recall lots of bitching and creebing over Clinton's repeated "acts of aggression" over Iraq.
Oh, but that was invading their air space and bombing them. Big difference...
[right][snapback]505275[/snapback][/right]
Oh, but that was invading their air space and bombing them. Big difference...
[right][snapback]505275[/snapback][/right]
The difference is 2000 body bags.
It may not be a big deal to the CLINTON BAD crowd, but I guaran-damn-tee it's a big deal to 2000 American families.
QUOTE(Campy @ Nov 16 2005, 09:22 PM)
Touch a nerve did I?
I'm afraid I'm not nearly corrupt enough for the job.
[right][snapback]505276[/snapback][/right]
I'm afraid I'm not nearly corrupt enough for the job.
[right][snapback]505276[/snapback][/right]
Corrupt? No, you are too naive.
QUOTE(Campy @ Nov 16 2005, 08:29 PM)
The difference is 2000 body bags.
It may not be a big deal to the CLINTON BAD crowd, but I guaran-damn-tee it's a big deal to 2000 American families.
[right][snapback]505282[/snapback][/right]
It may not be a big deal to the CLINTON BAD crowd, but I guaran-damn-tee it's a big deal to 2000 American families.
[right][snapback]505282[/snapback][/right]
So war's only bad if it kills people?
QUOTE(Ghost of BiB @ Nov 16 2005, 08:30 PM)
Corrupt? No, you are too naive.
[right][snapback]505284[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]505284[/snapback][/right]
Too funny.
QUOTE(Campy @ Nov 16 2005, 09:42 PM)
Too funny.
[right][snapback]505294[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]505294[/snapback][/right]
Think so?
QUOTE(Crap Throwing Monkey @ Nov 16 2005, 08:37 PM)
So war's only bad if it kills people?
[right][snapback]505289[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]505289[/snapback][/right]
Please give the monkey back his username. The monkey is smart enough to know that there's never been a war that hasn't killed people.
The key is to keep your guys alive, not send them home in body bags.
QUOTE(Campy @ Nov 16 2005, 09:44 PM)
Please give the monkey back his username. The monkey is smart enough to know that there's never been a war that hasn't killed people.
The key is to keep your guys alive, not send them home in body bags.
[right][snapback]505296[/snapback][/right]
The key is to keep your guys alive, not send them home in body bags.
[right][snapback]505296[/snapback][/right]
That's why folks like you, are huge fans of "Clinton War".
Go bomb some Balkan country, and give strict instructions to the Pentagon that no Americans will get hurt.
Aren't video games fun?
QUOTE(Ghost of BiB @ Nov 16 2005, 08:44 PM)
Think so?
[right][snapback]505295[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]505295[/snapback][/right]
Know so.
I didn't mean to touch a nerve there. I know you've been conditioned to tow the company line, but the reality is that Bush gambled and lost (hence the e-dog reference).
I don't have access to classified information, but if these non-existent WMDs actually existed W the chimp would be telling the world "I told you so." Fox News would be shouting it from the rooftops. I'm listening, but I don't hear it.
Whatever.
Sorry for pointing out the obvious and being critical of your real American hero.
QUOTE(Ghost of BiB @ Nov 16 2005, 08:49 PM)
That's why folks like you, are huge fans of "Clinton War".
Go bomb some Balkan country, and give strict instructions to the Pentagon that no Americans will get hurt.
Aren't video games fun?
[right][snapback]505298[/snapback][/right]
Go bomb some Balkan country, and give strict instructions to the Pentagon that no Americans will get hurt.
Aren't video games fun?
[right][snapback]505298[/snapback][/right]
And people who just want to throw bodies at the problem disgust me. But OK. What has it really solved? Instead of Hussein torturing people, the "Iraqi democracy" is doing it. Nice.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10049773/Those bodies are sons, daughters, husbands, wives, moms, and dads. I'm glad you're so cavalier about putting them in harm's way. It seems to work for you. It doesn't for me.
The "Clinton War," eh? You're right, I concede. It's soooo much better to send in a force that's too small and under equipped. Eh, the body-count goes up a bit, but it's OK, it's "Bush War."
QUOTE(Campy @ Nov 16 2005, 08:44 PM)
Please give the monkey back his username. The monkey is smart enough to know that there's never been a war that hasn't killed people.
The key is to keep your guys alive, not send them home in body bags.
[right][snapback]505296[/snapback][/right]
The key is to keep your guys alive, not send them home in body bags.
[right][snapback]505296[/snapback][/right]
Sorry...war's only bad if it kills our people.
And the key is to win. No decent military commander at any level in history has approached war from the perspective of "everyone must come home safely". The paradox of the only way to save lives in war being to fight it quickly, meaning you must be willing to accept the deaths of some of your soldiers to fight the war, I suspect is beyond your comprehension. It's beyond most peoples. It sure as hell was beyond Clinton's, as sure as it's NOT beyond al Zarqawi's.
QUOTE(Campy @ Nov 16 2005, 09:58 PM)
And people who are OK with just wanting to throw bodies at the problem disgust me. But OK. What has it really solved? Instead of Hussein torturing people, the "Iraqi democracy" is doing it. Nice.
Those bodies are sons, daughters, husbands, wives, moms, and dads. I'm glad you're so cavalier about putting them in harm's way. It seems to work for you. It doesn't for me.
The "Clinton War," eh? You're right, I concede. It's soooo much better to send in a force that's too small and under equipped. Eh, the body-count goes up a bit, but it's OK, it's "Bush War."
[right][snapback]505308[/snapback][/right]
Those bodies are sons, daughters, husbands, wives, moms, and dads. I'm glad you're so cavalier about putting them in harm's way. It seems to work for you. It doesn't for me.
The "Clinton War," eh? You're right, I concede. It's soooo much better to send in a force that's too small and under equipped. Eh, the body-count goes up a bit, but it's OK, it's "Bush War."
[right][snapback]505308[/snapback][/right]
I'm humbled. I had no idea those people had families.
You want to explain to me again why we were bombing the Balkans?
QUOTE(Crap Throwing Monkey @ Nov 16 2005, 09:14 PM)
Sorry...war's only bad if it kills our people.
[right][snapback]505323[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]505323[/snapback][/right]
NEWSFLASH: It is killing our people.
QUOTE
And the key is to win.
And that's generally accomplished by sending an undersized force ill-equipped for the mission? I think not.QUOTE
No decent military commander at any level in history has approached war from the perspective of "everyone must come home safely". The paradox of the only way to save lives in war being to fight it quickly, meaning you must be willing to accept the deaths of some of your soldiers to fight the war, I suspect is beyond your comprehension.
No. it isn't. Sending an undersized and ill-equipped force to complete the mission of a larger and better-equipped force is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps you can share with us why doing so is a good idea since that's the position you (are failing to) defend.QUOTE
It's beyond most peoples. It sure as hell was beyond Clinton's, as sure as it's NOT beyond al Zarqawi's.
Clinton didn't invade Iraq. Either that's beyond your comprehension, or it's just easier to say "But the other guy...." In any event, it does not justify the clusterfukc that is "Bush War."
QUOTE(Ghost of BiB @ Nov 16 2005, 09:17 PM)
I'm humbled. I had no idea those people had families.
You want to explain to me again why we were bombing the Balkans?
[right][snapback]505326[/snapback][/right]
You want to explain to me again why we were bombing the Balkans?
[right][snapback]505326[/snapback][/right]
And there we go again from the Bushites... But, but, your guy...
Too funny. Or sad. Maybe a little bit of both.
I do know we didn't lose 2000 Americans in the process.
You want to explain to me again why we invaded Iraq?
QUOTE(Ghost of BiB @ Nov 16 2005, 06:17 PM)
I'm humbled. I had no idea those people had families.
You want to explain to me again why we were bombing the Balkans?
[right][snapback]505326[/snapback][/right]
You want to explain to me again why we were bombing the Balkans?
[right][snapback]505326[/snapback][/right]
You're right. Bombing the Balkans and invading Iraq are virtually indistinguishable. They are precisely the same thing.
Clinton's "war"- lack of getting Osama when he could led to the death of ~3000 American civilians in one day.
He reminds me of Chamberlin,etc. in the 30s. if they would have gotten Hitler early, millions would not have ebeen exterminated.
He reminds me of Chamberlin,etc. in the 30s. if they would have gotten Hitler early, millions would not have ebeen exterminated.
QUOTE(Wacka @ Nov 16 2005, 09:47 PM)
Clinton's "war"- lack of getting Osama when he could led to the death of ~3000 American civilians in one day.
A lot of people seem to believe that.QUOTE
He reminds me of Chamberlin,etc. in the 30s. if they would have gotten Hitler early, millions would not have ebeen exterminated.
[right][snapback]505348[/snapback][/right]
A lot of people seem to believe that too.[right][snapback]505348[/snapback][/right]
Hypotheticals and what-ifs don't really change the reality we face today though, do they?
QUOTE(Wacka @ Nov 16 2005, 09:47 PM)
Clinton's "war"- lack of getting Osama when he could led to the death of ~3000 American civilians in one day.
He reminds me of Chamberlin,etc. in the 30s. if they would have gotten Hitler early, millions would not have ebeen exterminated.
[right][snapback]505348[/snapback][/right]
He reminds me of Chamberlin,etc. in the 30s. if they would have gotten Hitler early, millions would not have ebeen exterminated.
[right][snapback]505348[/snapback][/right]
I'm confused. How would killing Osama in the mid-nineties have prevented the attack?
By all accounts he was never a 'hands-on' guy, just a man with some bucks. And not the only one. If he were taken out of the picture the cells would have cooked up the idea anyway, got it blessed, and gone ahead, much as AQ activity is going on now.
Or do you think he is instrumental in the recent AQ activity in England, Spain, Egypt, Iraq, and Indonesia?
QUOTE(Wacka @ Nov 16 2005, 09:47 PM)
Clinton's "war"- lack of getting Osama when he could led to the death of ~3000 American civilians in one day.
He reminds me of Chamberlin,etc. in the 30s. if they would have gotten Hitler early, millions would not have ebeen exterminated.
[right][snapback]505348[/snapback][/right]
He reminds me of Chamberlin,etc. in the 30s. if they would have gotten Hitler early, millions would not have ebeen exterminated.
[right][snapback]505348[/snapback][/right]
And anyway, if you want to push the Chamberlain example you ought to push it back to Reagan. One truck bomb at a marine barracks and we pulled out of Lebanon. That sent an unfortunate message, a blueprint, to those in the region who wanted us out.
QUOTE(stuckincincy @ Nov 16 2005, 04:27 PM)
Ole' Hill and other Dem female senators fete Sen. "KKK Wizard" Byrd on his birthday.
Think ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN will report this?
Naaa...there is no liberal bias.
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../511160346/1021
[right][snapback]505044[/snapback][/right]
Think ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN will report this?
Naaa...there is no liberal bias.
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../511160346/1021
[right][snapback]505044[/snapback][/right]
Back to the original topic, as you know but don't want to point out because it diffuses your topic, the issue wasn't that Lott celebrated Thurmond's birthday. It was the toast he made in which he said he would have supported Thurmond's run for president, when at the time he ran Thurmond was advocating segregation. I don't believe Hillary said she would have supported Byrd when he was associated with the KKK. I don't believe Lott meant it as support for segregation, but that was the issue that garnered the press coverage.
QUOTE(Campy @ Nov 16 2005, 09:19 PM)
NEWSFLASH: It is killing our people.
And that's why it's bad. If it wasn't, it would be good. Just like Somalia: that was a good war while only Somalis were dying. Then Americans died. Then it was bad.
QUOTE
And that's generally accomplished by sending an undersized force ill-equipped for the mission? I think not.
No. it isn't. Sending an undersized and ill-equipped force to complete the mission of a larger and better-equipped force is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps you can share with us why doing so is a good idea since that's the position you (are failing to) defend.
No. it isn't. Sending an undersized and ill-equipped force to complete the mission of a larger and better-equipped force is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps you can share with us why doing so is a good idea since that's the position you (are failing to) defend.
Perhaps you can share with us, instead, what the proper OB is for a force occupying Iraq. Since you're the one making the assumption, not myself, I think it's only natural the burden of proof should fall to you first.
QUOTE
Clinton didn't invade Iraq. Either that's beyond your comprehension, or it's just easier to say "But the other guy...." In any event, it does not justify the clusterfukc that is "Bush War."
[right][snapback]505331[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]505331[/snapback][/right]
Ah...so when is a war not a war?
1) When Americans don't die, and
2) When there's no invasion.
So what was Clinton doing when he bombed Iraq? And Afghanistan? And Serbia? And Sudan?
For that matter, what was Nixon doing when he bombed the sh-- out of North Vietnam and Cambodia...last I checked, we didn't invade them, either. Ditto Reagan and Libya (with whom we fought four battles in the '80s) and Iran (who we also fought battles with in the '80s - USS Vincennes ring a bell?) Panama and Grenada, on the other hand, were wars...but they were "good" wars, since Americans didn't die, I imagine...as opposed to Beirut and Mogadishu, which were "bad" wars..."But the other guy..." is never a reasonable argument...but this isn't about "the other guy", it's about the BS attitude that "war" is something that's only fought from the ground. This country has been at war pretty constantly since 1979 (which, conicidentally, is when US soil - for that's what an embassy legally is - was invaded by radical Islamists in Iran and Pakistan). Libya, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Iran, Iraq...see a pattern yet? Hell, bombing Libya in the '80s isn't even manifestly different from invading Iraq today...they only seem different because people can't relate the video-game nature of dropping a GBU to the sheer terror of patrolling some back alley in Nasiriyah or Mazar-i-Sharif.
QUOTE(Crap Throwing Monkey @ Nov 16 2005, 08:58 PM)
And that's why it's bad. If it wasn't, it would be good. Just like Somalia: that was a good war while only Somalis were dying. Then Americans died. Then it was bad.
Perhaps you can share with us, instead, what the proper OB is for a force occupying Iraq. Since you're the one making the assumption, not myself, I think it's only natural the burden of proof should fall to you first.
Ah...so when is a war not a war?
1) When Americans don't die, and
2) When there's no invasion.
So what was Clinton doing when he bombed Iraq? And Afghanistan? And Serbia? And Sudan? For that matter, what was Nixon doing when he bombed the sh-- out of North Vietnam and Cambodia...last I checked, we didn't invade them, either. Ditto Reagan and Libya (with whom we fought four battles in the '80s) and Iran (who we also fought battles with in the '80s - USS Vincennes ring a bell?) Panama and Grenada, on the other hand, were wars...but they were "good" wars, since Americans didn't die, I imagine...as opposed to Beirut and Mogadishu, which were "bad" wars...
"But the other guy..." is never a reasonable argument...but this isn't about "the other guy", it's about the BS attitude that "war" is something that's only fought from the ground. This country has been at war pretty constantly since 1979 (which, conicidentally, is when US soil - for that's what an embassy legally is - was invaded by radical Islamists in Iran and Pakistan). Libya, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Iran, Iraq...see a pattern yet? Hell, bombing Libya in the '80s isn't even manifestly different from invading Iraq today...they only seem different because people can't relate the video-game nature of dropping a GBU to the sheer terror of patrolling some back alley in Nasiriyah or Mazar-i-Sharif.
[right][snapback]505421[/snapback][/right]
Perhaps you can share with us, instead, what the proper OB is for a force occupying Iraq. Since you're the one making the assumption, not myself, I think it's only natural the burden of proof should fall to you first.
Ah...so when is a war not a war?
1) When Americans don't die, and
2) When there's no invasion.
So what was Clinton doing when he bombed Iraq? And Afghanistan? And Serbia? And Sudan?
For that matter, what was Nixon doing when he bombed the sh-- out of North Vietnam and Cambodia...last I checked, we didn't invade them, either. Ditto Reagan and Libya (with whom we fought four battles in the '80s) and Iran (who we also fought battles with in the '80s - USS Vincennes ring a bell?) Panama and Grenada, on the other hand, were wars...but they were "good" wars, since Americans didn't die, I imagine...as opposed to Beirut and Mogadishu, which were "bad" wars..."But the other guy..." is never a reasonable argument...but this isn't about "the other guy", it's about the BS attitude that "war" is something that's only fought from the ground. This country has been at war pretty constantly since 1979 (which, conicidentally, is when US soil - for that's what an embassy legally is - was invaded by radical Islamists in Iran and Pakistan). Libya, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Iran, Iraq...see a pattern yet? Hell, bombing Libya in the '80s isn't even manifestly different from invading Iraq today...they only seem different because people can't relate the video-game nature of dropping a GBU to the sheer terror of patrolling some back alley in Nasiriyah or Mazar-i-Sharif.
[right][snapback]505421[/snapback][/right]
I guess, apparently, that 9/11 wasn't really bad because it killed Americans, it would have been just as bad if Al Qaeda happened to run planes into France and blew up the Eiffel Tower or Arc de Triumph. We would have been just as outraged. Because it doesnt really matter if a couple thousand Americans are killed, we are really worried about all the world's citizens. If Osama had blew up New Zealand, we surely would have invaded Afghanistan anyway because we're so concerned about every citizen of the world, and not so much about ourselves.
And besides, twenty or so American soldiers dying is pretty much the same as a couple thousand. Not much difference, it's just, what, one or two zeroes? And bombing some military operations and losing a few soldiers is really pretty much the exact same thing as invading a country, deposing its leader, installing a new government, spending hundreds of billions, losing 2000 soldiers, 10,000 injured badly, causing more terrorism that we could ever imagine, getting the rest of the world to hate us way more than they ever did in our history even though they hated us before. I can't tell the difference between those wars at all. I mean, seriously, they're still wars.
All I can say is you libs still don't get it.
And to get back to the original topic, Hillary et al are honoring the only member of the Congress that was a member of the KKK. But since he's a democrat, that's OK. Filibustering the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, thats OK too. Robert Byrd (D-KKK). the biggest racist in the Senate.
And to get back to the original topic, Hillary et al are honoring the only member of the Congress that was a member of the KKK. But since he's a democrat, that's OK. Filibustering the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, thats OK too. Robert Byrd (D-KKK). the biggest racist in the Senate.
QUOTE(stuckincincy @ Nov 16 2005, 03:27 PM)
Ole' Hill and other Dem female senators fete Sen. "KKK Wizard" Byrd on his birthday.
Think ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN will report this?
Naaa...there is no liberal bias.
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../511160346/1021
[right][snapback]505044[/snapback][/right]
Think ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN will report this?
Naaa...there is no liberal bias.
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../511160346/1021
[right][snapback]505044[/snapback][/right]
How bout that new definition of science or the oppression of gays.
(Yes CTM that was another setup
)
QUOTE(Campy @ Nov 16 2005, 10:22 PM)
And there we go again from the Bushites... But, but, your guy...
Too funny. Or sad. Maybe a little bit of both.
I do know we didn't lose 2000 Americans in the process.
You want to explain to me again why we invaded Iraq?
[right][snapback]505332[/snapback][/right]
Too funny. Or sad. Maybe a little bit of both.
I do know we didn't lose 2000 Americans in the process.
You want to explain to me again why we invaded Iraq?
[right][snapback]505332[/snapback][/right]
For the 600th time? Sure. Why not?
I'm pretty certain the media would have reported this if 'ol Hillary had said: ".....things would be a whole lot better today had the Mr. bird of old (read KKK) had his way back then."
I'm quite certain they would have pounced on that!
The fact is that the Lott media uproar was not about a party for a 100 year old senator, it was not, it was about the coments he made.
I'm quite certain they would have pounced on that!
The fact is that the Lott media uproar was not about a party for a 100 year old senator, it was not, it was about the coments he made.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Of course, that the murderer Sadaam is out is of no consequence. Better he still be there?
Of course, that the murderer Sadaam is out is of no consequence. Better he still be there?
QUOTE(Campy @ Nov 16 2005, 05:36 PM)
Murderer? He was Reagan and Rummy's best friend in the 80's. I wonder what happened?
[right][snapback]505107[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]505107[/snapback][/right]
Like George Washington said, use em and lose em.
QUOTE(Campy @ Nov 16 2005, 05:03 PM)
I guess Americans must just be more concerned about a president who lied us into a war, money-laundering indictments, and White House staff indictments to get too worked up over a birthday party.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5111300857.html
[right][snapback]505079[/snapback][/right]
>>>>The "yeah, but the other guys are worse" angle doesn't cut it in this debate.<<<<
Campy, this is a quote, from YOU in a post to me in another thread.
Am I to assume that is does "cut it" in this debate?
QUOTE(Bill from NYC @ Nov 17 2005, 11:00 AM)
>>>>The "yeah, but the other guys are worse" angle doesn't cut it in this debate.<<<<
Campy, this is a quote, from YOU in a post to me in another thread.
Am I to assume that is does "cut it" in this debate?
[right][snapback]505629[/snapback][/right]
Campy, this is a quote, from YOU in a post to me in another thread.
Am I to assume that is does "cut it" in this debate?
[right][snapback]505629[/snapback][/right]
Those might be valid reasons why this non-story fell to the back burner, don't you think?
Or would you prefer we ignore real news and blast Hillary for attending a birthday party because you don't like her politics?
Good God, our foreign policy has been a complete failure, Americans are being killed and maimed in a war to set up a puppet government that, just like its master, seems to consider torture and abuse as acceptable, and you think a fuggin' birthday party is news?
Amazing.
QUOTE(Campy @ Nov 17 2005, 11:13 AM)
a war to set up a puppet government
[right][snapback]505645[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]505645[/snapback][/right]
i thought it was a war about oil. or was that last week?
QUOTE(OnTheRocks @ Nov 17 2005, 11:30 AM)
i thought it was a war about oil. or was that last week?
[right][snapback]505664[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]505664[/snapback][/right]
Week before last. Last week it was about dad.
QUOTE(Crap Throwing Monkey @ Nov 17 2005, 11:43 AM)
Week before last. Last week it was about dad.
[right][snapback]505680[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]505680[/snapback][/right]
It is actually a rotating thingy:
Haliburton
Revenge for Daddy
Oil
Lather
Rinse
Repeat
QUOTE(KRC @ Nov 17 2005, 11:54 AM)
It is actually a rotating thingy:
Haliburton
Revenge for Daddy
Oil
Lather
Rinse
Repeat
[right][snapback]505694[/snapback][/right]
Haliburton
Revenge for Daddy
Oil
Lather
Rinse
Repeat
[right][snapback]505694[/snapback][/right]
You forgot how we have to tell the whole world, and the terrorist how and when we're going to pull out of Iraq.
Now there's a plan
Note to self: OTR, Tom, and Ken obviously think that a fuggin' birthday is more newsworthy than the Iraq war.
Anyone else have a birthday party recently that y'all think should be carried on the nightly news?
Anyone else have a birthday party recently that y'all think should be carried on the nightly news?
QUOTE(Campy @ Nov 17 2005, 12:01 PM)
Note to self: OTR, Tom, and Ken obviously think that a fuggin' birthday is more newsworthy than the Iraq war.
Anyone else have a birthday party recently that y'all think should be carried on the nightly news?
[right][snapback]505705[/snapback][/right]
Anyone else have a birthday party recently that y'all think should be carried on the nightly news?
[right][snapback]505705[/snapback][/right]
i never said that.
QUOTE(KRC @ Nov 17 2005, 10:54 AM)
It is actually a rotating thingy:
Haliburton
Revenge for Daddy
Oil
Lather
Rinse
Repeat
[right][snapback]505694[/snapback][/right]
Haliburton
Revenge for Daddy
Oil
Lather
Rinse
Repeat
[right][snapback]505694[/snapback][/right]
Every now and then it's also a war for Israel.
QUOTE(Campy @ Nov 17 2005, 12:01 PM)
Note to self: OTR, Tom, and Ken obviously think that a fuggin' birthday is more newsworthy than the Iraq war.
Anyone else have a birthday party recently that y'all think should be carried on the nightly news?
[right][snapback]505705[/snapback][/right]
Anyone else have a birthday party recently that y'all think should be carried on the nightly news?
[right][snapback]505705[/snapback][/right]
Yeah, that has to be it. Funny, what was going on in the world when Lott was crucified by the left for his birthday party attendance? Oh, wait...If it involves Republicans, it is newsworthy. If it involves Dems, it is not. Got it.
QUOTE(SilverNRed @ Nov 17 2005, 12:26 PM)
Every now and then it's also a war for Israel.
[right][snapback]505737[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]505737[/snapback][/right]
I forgot that one. Thanks.
QUOTE(Campy @ Nov 17 2005, 12:01 PM)
Note to self: OTR, Tom, and Ken obviously think that a fuggin' birthday is more newsworthy than the Iraq war.
Anyone else have a birthday party recently that y'all think should be carried on the nightly news?
[right][snapback]505705[/snapback][/right]
Anyone else have a birthday party recently that y'all think should be carried on the nightly news?
[right][snapback]505705[/snapback][/right]
What birthday?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.