Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 276

Thread: Post all political and war topics here, part 2

  1. #221
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Sep 19 2003, 03:08 PM
    [b] [quote][b]Take it easy dude, it's just a friggin internet chat room - I'm not interested in debate, I am just posting my opinions. ;) [/b][/quote]
    Fine except that you're calling me a plagiarist, and thats bull****! [/b][/quote]
    C'mon dude - I didn't call you a plagarist, just unoriginal and incapable of mature debate.

    You said I supported the war for entertainment purposes and "liked to see bombs dropped" or some such nonsense and I didn't get pissed. I think that's worse. Take it easy dude....

  2. #222
    Yup, Coulter cares only about the cold hard facts:

    [url=http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/coulter.pdf]http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/coulter.pdf[/url]

    Of course, this will be dismissed as vindictive conjecture, while a joyless blow-by-blow about how Michael Moore spliced Heston's "cold dead hands" speech 2 scenes after an elementary school killing (a standard editing trick used in EVERY documentary in the history of mankind) somehow invalidates his whole movie (which, unlike his often crappy writing and Coulter's ridiculous fear-mongering, wasn't even an anti-gun flick per se).

    Whatever. People who write political books all have agendas. If you find Coulter's "liberals are in a conspiracy to destroy America" and Robert Bork's "Rock and roll is Satan's child" more entertaining than Moore's movies, it's a free country.

    Just don't sit here and lecture me about how much more honest and consistent they are with 'the facts'. Their books, along with Moore's "Stupid White Men", are blatant propaganda pieces that take a few isolated citations and spend 10 pages expanding it into a total demonization of every organization, politician, media personality, and idealogy they've decided they personally hate.

    And I'm sorry, if you have to resort to ranting about "those war protesting fags", you're far more reactionary than I thought. Cute screen name, too. Do you only go to restaurants that call 'em "freedom fries"?

  3. #223
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Sep 19 2003, 04:06 PM
    [b] sackfrance im not offended by the word fag im offended when dip****s like you hide behind your keyboard and insult people with it like you are some sort of internet champion. tough guy ain'tcha.

    i didn't realize selling books was all one had to do to be respected. by your standards Michael moore and hillary clinton are worthy of respect!!!

    hey man Its a known fact that Ann Coulter has attended at least 67 Dead shows. Her head is twisted on copious amounts of acid, balloons and ditch weed. Now she is a conservative guru CONNING legions. How nice for her. She's got a great racket and i wish her well.

    ---

    meanwhile. How about the new digs. I like how Sooth gave us an entire forum to duke it out. Spacious we can really spread out [/b][/quote]
    what's wrong with dead shows? and for a woman you hate so much, how the hell do you know that? isn't stereotyping wrong, as in she's on acid...and her lucidity and drugfree consciousness isn't why we both know her name now, is it?

    we know her name because she calls out liberal scallywags in a brutally truthful manner that libs, like you, can't handle.

    so...she's on acid, she's stupid, etc. etc...yawn...i'm a dip**** who hides on the internet...yap, yap, yap...just stop defending saddam hussein's integrity and right to be leading a major country in this day and age, okay?
    remember where you're from and what really matters...not our civil liberties being crushed by ashcroft, instead that we were infiltrated and slaughtered in the worst terror attack in history. right here in new york city, about two years ago.

    just what do you think we should do about it?

  4. #224
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Jet Set Junta[/i]@Sep 19 2003, 04:52 PM
    [b] Yup, Coulter cares only about the cold hard facts:

    [url=http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/coulter.pdf]http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/coulter.pdf[/url]

    Of course, this will be dismissed as vindictive conjecture, while a joyless blow-by-blow about how Michael Moore spliced Heston's "cold dead hands" speech 2 scenes after an elementary school killing (a standard editing trick used in EVERY documentary in the history of mankind) somehow invalidates his whole movie (which, unlike his often crappy writing and Coulter's ridiculous fear-mongering, wasn't even an anti-gun flick per se).

    Whatever. People who write political books all have agendas. If you find Coulter's "liberals are in a conspiracy to destroy America" and Robert Bork's "Rock and roll is Satan's child" more entertaining than Moore's movies, it's a free country.

    Just don't sit here and lecture me about how much more honest and consistent they are with 'the facts'. Their books, along with Moore's "Stupid White Men", are blatant propaganda pieces that take a few isolated citations and spend 10 pages expanding it into a total demonization of every organization, politician, media personality, and idealogy they've decided they personally hate.

    And I'm sorry, if you have to resort to ranting about "those war protesting fags", you're far more reactionary than I thought. Cute screen name, too. Do you only go to restaurants that call 'em "freedom fries"? [/b][/quote]
    name one restaurant that serves "freedom fries"? then get serious and i'll gladly respond to anything you dish, kid.

    let me ask you fags (my, you all freak out when i write that!) something. do you spout off anti-bushisms at jet tailgates? i know you don't.

  5. #225
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Sep 19 2003, 02:14 PM
    [b] Jet Set - that $50 million you refer to is more like $250 million and it was given to aid programs in Afganistan to help their people. It was not simply handed to the Taliban for the war on drugs like you and Michael Moore bilthely assert. You are being reduced to Moore-ish talking points, all while ripping on Ann Coulter, funny.
    [/b][/quote]

    And you're reduced to chiding me for not realizing that the good ol Taliban could be trusted with 250 million right before we went and invaded them anyway. I can dredge up the link that shows the citation for the 50 million, as I did months ago on this thread. Where's your link about the 250, and what the hell was it supposed to go to? Buying more burquas and whips to help keep women in their place??

    No matter what spin you put on it, this is actually a perfect example of the exact sort of big spending and aiding nations of dubious terrorist support that you guys have been accusing Clinton and the "liberal ideology" of for years. It was a waste of money, and it was a poor regime to ever support in any form let alone our continuing support for Saudi Arabia and treating their corrupt sheiks and Bin Laden cousins like royalty because they're golfing buddies with George HW Bush.

    You paint a good argument about only trusting State Dept "intelligence" when it vindicates certain viewpoints, but we've all been guilty of this. And it's absolutely true every time someone like Weeb refutes a "missing WMD" link with another "Saddam is a big Al-Queda backer" source. All you're doing is painting the discrepancy to favor your side.

    When it comes back to it, the last 3-4 pages from the "conservative" side of the argument have gone back to screaming about how the Iraq invasion was absolutely necessary to prevent another 9/11. When pushed to explain, you went back to your long-consistent arguments about how this would have been necessary 12 years ago regardless of 9/11, which I can respect. Sackfrance reverted to screaming "Saddam HAD to be involved, and you liberal fags suck for not supporting Bush".

    Look, I realize clearly that some of you think that the Iraq campaign is a centerpiece of preventing terrorism, even if it doesn't have anything to do with 9/11. The conservatives here have expressed their rationale 100 times, to varying degrees of clarity and consistency. I simply disagree, and see NOTHING news-wise that has come out in the last 4 months that proves the Iraq thing was worth the lives and money it costed and will continue to cost.

    At some point, your "look we haven't been attacked" argument requires some proof that any Saddam-related weapon or plot was uncovered. Free-associating 9/11 to scapegoat Clinton, vindicate anything Bush does, etc. doesn't make your point any more valid than when it's used as an argument against Bush II. I've NEVER claimed George W. Bush was responsible for 9/11, but when people go off on their "Blame Clinton" logic -- I think it can be equally argued he had as much a chance to thwart it as Clinton, Bush I, or Reagan did with each's degree of involvement in intelligence reports, arrest/bombing attempts, and ever giving these ****ers aid in the first place -- Soviet threat or not. The truth is, NONE of these Presidents realized it was a problem until it was too late. We can argue all we want about how to prevent it again, but no single President is singlehandedly "at fault" for letting 9/11 happen.

    And as for "exploiting the deaths", last I checked it wasn't the Democratic Party that wants to hold their convention at Ground Zero. Again, people with a political agenda on ANY side are going to be using 9/11 as an argument a LOT for the next 1, 5, maybe 20 years even if nothing worse ever happens to us. Claiming this to be some kind of exclusively liberal disease is a joke.

  6. #226
    [quote][i]Originally posted by sackfrance[/i]@Sep 19 2003, 04:07 PM
    [b]
    let me ask you fags (my, you all freak out when i write that!) something. do you spout off anti-bushisms at jet tailgates? i know you don't. [/b][/quote]

    I talk about anything at tailgates, but I try not to start political discussions because they can get heated and ruin the fun we're supposed to be having living it up in the moment. Here during the week it's a different story.

    If you're implying that I'm somehow afraid to speak up my side in public, give me a break. I don't live in fear of speaking out, just like I don't need to resort to the word "fag" in some attempt to play internet macho guy in an argument.

    [img]http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/assets/Blowhard.jpg[/img]

    [url=http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html]http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html[/url]

  7. #227
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Sep 19 2003, 01:30 PM
    [b] weeb...

    When President Clinton left office on January 20, 2001 the nation was in very good shape. We had a strong economy, we were poised to retire the national debt, America was secure and the beautiful twin towers were standing tall and proud in Manhattan.

    [/b][/quote]
    To fools like you who believe the total and absolute fraud blowjob bill perpetrated on the American public. The economy was built on the likes of the internet, e-commerce and the strength of Bill Gates and Michael Dell. blowjob bill let the intelligence communities and military deteriorate as we was not willing to spend the necessary money for the upkeep....and unfortunately because of his negligence we paid a dear price on 9/11!

  8. #228
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Sep 19 2003, 01:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Sep 19 2003, 01:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PFSIKH[/i]@Sep 19 2003, 01:41 PM
    [b] Of course th emost incredulous act was not taking Bin Laden when Sudan offered him up. [/b][/quote]
    This is a total myth made up by Sean Hannity, it never happened.[/b][/quote]
    [[b][i]NEWSFLASH.....NEWSFLASH.....[/i][/b]Hannity did not make it up, its&#39; been well documented and admitted to by blowjob bill (he felt he had no legal authority to take him...in actuality he had his hand on the back of monika&#39;s head and did not want to pick up the phone&#33;&#33;)

  9. #229
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Sep 3 2003, 04:49 PM
    [b] Federal Budget Deficits in and of themselves aren&#39;t a bad thing. However, the out of control deficits that we have today are a disaster.

    Its interesting that Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush [b]NEVER[/b] submitted a balanced budget proposal to the Congress. [/b][/quote]
    Yes, blowjob bill clinton did...at the expense of the military, at the expense of the CIA, at the expense of the FBI, at the expense of the border control and so on and so on, etc.

  10. #230
    tailgator took glee in reminding us about 3 gi deaths and linking it with president bush. don&#39;t expect me to be rational or respectful after that crap. get over the "fag" thing, pronto. it is meaningless.

    i just think it&#39;s sad you can sit back and disagree with our country&#39;s actions after the 9/11 attacks. frankly, it&#39;s callous and i just wonder what game you all are watching.

    too many of you are more interested in calling out our president for everything under the sun, than in preventing future attacks.

  11. #231
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Jersey shore
    Posts
    2,067
    "get over the "fag" thing, pronto. it is meaningless." If we lived on the other side of the pond (England) sackfrance would be calling you all "cigarettes" :)

  12. #232
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Sep 19 2003, 01:30 PM
    [b]weeb...

    When President Clinton left office on January 20, 2001 the nation was in very good shape. We had a strong economy, we were poised to retire the national debt, America was secure and the beautiful twin towers were standing tall and proud in Manhattan.

    Within nine short months of President Bush&#39;s only term, the economy was ruined the federal debt exploded and he was standing on the rubble of the twin towers and the bodies of our loved ones.

    Rarely in history has a president or for that matter any head of state caused or overseen so much destruction in so short a time.

    No wonder he&#39;s a hero to fools like you.[/b][/quote]
    This is how safe and secure we really were. From the AP- dated 9/21. Note how many events occured between 1996 and early 2000. Also not what the CIA knew and how blowjob bill clinton did [b][i]NOTHING[/i][/b] about it:

    AP: Terrorist Says 9/11 Plot Began in &#39;96
    26 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo&#33;


    By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON - Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, has told American interrogators that he first discussed the plot with Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) in 1996 and that the original plan called for hijacking five commercial jets on each U.S. coast before it was modified several times, according to interrogation reports reviewed by The Associated Press.


    AP Photo


    Reuters
    Slideshow: September 11




    Mohammed also divulged that, in its final stages, the hijacking plan called for as many as 22 terrorists and four planes in a first wave, followed by a second wave of suicide hijackings that were to be aided possibly by al-Qaida allies in southeast Asia, according to the reports.


    Over time, bin Laden scrapped various parts of the Sept. 11 plan, including attacks on both coasts and hijacking or bombing some planes in East Asia, Mohammed is quoted as saying in reports that shed new light on the origins and evolution of the plot of Sept. 11, 2001.


    Addressing one of the questions raised by congressional investigators in their Sept. 11 review, Mohammed said he never heard of a Saudi man named Omar al-Bayoumi who provided some rent money and assistance to two hijackers when they arrived in California.


    Congressional investigators have suggested Bayoumi could have aided the hijackers or been a Saudi intelligence agent, charges the Saudi government vehemently deny. The FBI (news - web sites) has also cast doubt on the congressional theory after extensive investigation and several interviews with al-Bayoumi.


    In fact, Mohammed claims he did not arrange for anyone on U.S. soil to assist hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi when they arrived in California. Mohammed said there "were no al-Qaida operatives or facilitators in the United States to help al-Mihdhar or al-Hazmi settle in the United States," one of the reports state.


    Mohammed portrays those two hijackers as central to the plot, and even more important than Mohammed Atta, initially identified by Americans as the likely hijacking ringleader. Mohammed said he communicated with al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar while they were in the United States by using Internet chat software, the reports states.


    Mohammed said al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were among the four original operatives bin Laden assigned to him for the plot, a significant revelation because those were the only two hijackers whom U.S. authorities were frantically seeking for terrorist ties in the final days before Sept. 11.


    U.S. authorities continue to investigate the many statements that Mohammed has made in interrogations, seeking to eliminate deliberate misinformation. But they have been able to corroborate with other captives and evidence much of his account of the Sept. 11 planning.


    Mohammed told his interrogators the hijacking teams were originally made up of members from different countries where al-Qaida had recruited, but that in the final stages bin Laden chose instead to use a large group of young Saudi men to populate the hijacking teams.


    As the plot came closer to fruition, Mohammed learned "there was a large group of Saudi operatives that would be available to participate as the muscle in the plot to hijack planes in the United States," one report says Mohammed told his captors.


    Saudi Arabia was bin Laden&#39;s home, though it revoked his citizenship in the 1990s, and he reviled its alliance with the United States during the Gulf War (news - web sites) and beyond. Saudis have suggested for months that bin Laden has been trying to drive a wedge between the United States and their kingdom, hoping to fracture the alliance.


    U.S. intelligence has suggested that Saudis were chosen, instead, because there were large numbers willing to follow bin Laden and they could more easily get into the United States because of the countries&#39; friendly relations.


    Mohammed&#39;s interrogation report states he told Americans some of the original operatives assigned to the plot did not make it because they had trouble getting into the United States.


    Mohammed was captured in a March 1 raid by Pakistani forces and CIA (news - web sites) operatives in Rawalpindi. He is being interrogated by the CIA at an undisclosed location.


    He told interrogators about other terror plots that were in various stages of planning or had been temporarily disrupted when he was captured, including one planned for Singapore.


    The sources who allowed AP to review the reports insisted that specific details not be divulged about those operations because U.S. intelligence continues to investigate some of the methods and search for some of the operatives.





    The interrogation reports make dramatically clear that Mohammed and al-Qaida were still actively looking to strike U.S., Western and Israeli targets across the world as of this year.

    Mohammed told his interrogators he had worked in 1994 and 1995 in the Philippines with Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad and Wali Khan Amin Shah on the foiled Bojinka plot to blow up 12 Western airliners simultaneously in Asia.

    After Yousef and Murad were captured, foiling the plot in its final stages, Mohammed began to devise a new plot that focused on hijackings on U.S. soil.

    In 1996, he went to meet bin Laden to persuade the al-Qaida leader "to give him money and operatives so he could hijack 10 planes in the United States and fly them into targets," one of the interrogation reports state.

    Mohammed told interrogators his initial thought was to pick five targets on each coast, but bin Laden was not convinced such a plan was practical, the reports stated.

    Mohammed said bin Laden offered him four operatives to begin with ó al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi as well as two Yemenis, Walid Muhammed bin Attash and Abu Bara al-Yemeni.

    "All four operatives only knew that they had volunteered for a martyrdom operation involving planes," one report stated.

    Mohammed said the first major change to the plans occurred in 1999 when the two Yemeni operatives could not get U.S. visas. Bin Laden then offered him additional operatives, including a member of his personal security detail. The original two Yemenis were instructed to focus on hijacking planes in East Asia.

    Mohammed said through the various iterations of the plot, he considered using a scaled-down version of the Bojinka plan that would have bombed commercial airliners, and that he even "contemplated attempting to down the planes using shoes bombs," one report said.

    The plot, he said, eventually evolved into hijacking a small number of planes in the United States and East Asia and either having them explode or crash into targets simultaneously, the reports stated.

    By 1999, the four original operatives picked for the plot traveled to Afghanistan (news - web sites) to train at one of bin Laden&#39;s camps. The focus, Mohammed said, was on specialized commando training, not piloting jets.

    Mohammed&#39;s interrogations have revealed the planning and training of operatives was extraordinarily meticulous, including how to blend into American society, read telephone yellow pages, and research airline schedules.

    A key event in the plot, Mohammed told his interrogators, was a meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in January 2000, that included al-Mihdhar, al-Hazmi and other al-Qaida operatives. The CIA learned of the meeting beforehand and had it monitored by Malaysian security, but it did not realize the significance of the two eventual hijackers until just before the attacks.

    The interrogation reports state bin Laden further trimmed Mohammed&#39;s plans in spring 2000 when he canceled the idea for hijackings in East Asia, thus narrowing it to the United States. Bin Laden thought "it would be too difficult to synchronize" attacks in the United States and Asia, one interrogation report quotes Mohammed as saying.

    Mohammed said around that time he reached out to an al-Qaida linked group in southeast Asia known as Jemaah Islamiyah. He began "recruiting JI operatives for inclusion in the hijacking plot as part of his second wave of hijacking attacks to occur after Sept. 11," one summary said.

    Jemaah Islamiyah&#39;s operations chief, Riduan Isamuddin Hambali, had attended part of the January 2000 meeting in Kuala Lumpur but Mohammed said he was there at that time only because "as a rule had had to be informed" of events in his region. Later, Hambali&#39;s operative began training possible recruits for the second wave, according to the interrogation report.

    One of those who received training in Malaysia before coming to the United States was Zacarias Moussaoui, the Frenchman accused of conspiring with the Sept. 11 attacks. Moussaoui has denied being part of the Sept. 11 plot, and U.S. and foreign intelligence officials have said he could have been set for hijacking a plane in a later wave of attacks.

  13. #233
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Good one Comeback.

    Tailgators is an emotional child.

  14. #234
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    And yet another for those who feel Iraq had no connection with terrorists or the planning of 9/11. Notice, this is from today&#39;s edition of the Wall Street Journal (voice of the left) and like everything else, the majority of the events took place under clinton&#39;s watch:

    [i][b]Iraq and al Qaeda [/b][/i] WSJ- 9/22/2003

    The Bush Administration was cautious, arguably too cautious, when making its case for the liberation of Iraq. Exhibit A is what it said about the links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Investigators, interrogators and even journalists are turning up evidence of a stronger relationship than the limited ties originally sketched by President Bush and Colin Powell.

    That wasn&#39;t the big story last week of course. The big news was that Mr. Bush said he has "no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved" in the attacks of September 11, 2001. Predictably, this is being spun as a concession from the Administration, which has been accused of exaggerating the al Qaeda link.

    In truth, Mr. Bush has never gone further than what he reiterated last week: "There&#39;s no question Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." U.S. intelligence officials, meanwhile, have confirmed that fact once again. Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was being harbored in Iraq; documents recently found in Tikrit indicate that Saddam provided Yasin with monthly payments and a home. According to federal authorities, the Ramzi Yousef-led terror cell that carried out the 1993 bombing received funding from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged mastermind of the 2001 attack.

    Far from exaggeration, what struck us about the case the President and Colin Powell took to the U.N. last fall and winter was its restraint. It focused mainly on a then-obscure terrorist named Abu Mussab al Zarqawi with no alleged 9/11 link, and a small affiliated terror group called Ansar al Islam operating in the Kurdish area of Northern Iraq. Left out entirely by Mr. Bush were the following stories:

    - About a month after September 11, reports surfaced that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi embassy official and intelligence agent named Ahmed al-Ani. Al-Ani was a later expelled from the Czech Republic, in connection with a plot to bomb Radio Free Europe/Radio Free Iraq. Despite repeated attempts to discredit the report of a meeting between the two, Czech officials at the cabinet level have stuck by the story. Al-Ani has been captured in Iraq, and the public deserves to know what he&#39;s telling U.S. officials about that meeting.

    - Also in October 2001, two defectors alleged that a 707 fuselage at Salman Pak, south of Baghdad, was being used to train terrorists in the art of hijacking with simple weapons such as knives. Though no link to al Qaeda was alleged, some of the trainees were said to be non-Iraqi Arabs. The fuselage was clearly visible in satellite photos, and has since been found.

    - Press reports, which had begun in 1998, resurfaced that former Iraqi intelligence chief and then-ambassador to Turkey Faruk Hijazi had met with bin Laden and associates on multiple occasions. Hijazi is in U.S. custody too, and has reportedly confirmed some of the alleged contacts.

    That these stories never figured in the case for war was partly a function of caution on the part of the Administration. It was also partly a result of skepticism from the CIA, which had wrongly judged Saddam and Osama incapable of cooperation on the grounds that the former was secular, the latter fundamentalist.

    Some CIA officials are still flogging this theory through leaks to the media. A June 9 article by James Risen in the New York Times claimed captured al Qaeda planner Abu Zubaydah had told CIA interrogators that al Qaeda had not "worked jointly" with Saddam. But what Mr. Risen&#39;s source, according to our own, neglected to mention was that the very next sentence of the Zubaydah debrief describes bin Laden&#39;s attitude toward Saddam as considering the enemy of his enemy to be his friend.

    According to Insight magazine, the CIA&#39;s Paul Pillar, National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, used a lecture at Johns Hopkins University earlier this year to criticize the President&#39;s war on terror. He said that there was no evidence of Iraqi terror sponsorship since 1993, and no evidence of its involvement in the World Trade Center bombing that year. Curiously, we hear the agency has so far declined to share the file found in Iraq on Yasin (the 1993 New York bombing suspect) with other branches of the government.

    One of the more interesting pieces of postwar evidence was uncovered in Baghdad by reporters for the Toronto Star and London&#39;s Sunday Telegraph. The February 19, 1998 memo from Iraqi intelligence, in which bin Laden&#39;s name was covered over with Liquid Paper, reported planned meetings with an al Qaeda representative visiting Baghdad. Days later al Qaeda issued a fatwa alleging U.S. crimes against Iraq. At about the same time, a U.S. government source tells Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, Iraq paid bin Laden deputy Ayman Zawahiri &#036;300,000.

    As Saddam&#39;s very public financial support for Palestinian suicide bombing would suggest, the dictator had no problem working with other fundamentalist groups based on nothing more than their mutual hatred for the United States. Sources tell us the U.S. has found 1993 memos from Saddam&#39;s government directing Iraqi intelligence to assist Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and to assist Afghan-based holy warriors against the U.S. peacekeeping mission in Somalia. These facts deserve more public disclosure.

    Of course, none of this "proves" any Saddam-9/11 link, as Mr. Bush acknowledges. But neither can we be sure there wasn&#39;t one. Our point is that U.S. government and intelligence officials ought to be open to the evidence of any links between state sponsors and terrorists. But for many Administration critics, it seems, nothing less than smoking-gun proof that 9/11 was an Iraqi-al Qaeda joint operation will do.

    This standard ignores the multiple ways in which states can aid and abet terror -- harboring, training, funding, providing false travel documents. What the President&#39;s critics seem to want, instead, is to de-link Iraq from the war on terror, and to return to the pre-9/11 practice of targeting terror groups without going after their state sponsors. We think this is short-sighted and dangerous, and that Mr. Bush should begin to call them on it.

  15. #235
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Jet Set Junta+Sep 19 2003, 04:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Jet Set Junta @ Sep 19 2003, 04:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever[/i]@Sep 19 2003, 02:14 PM
    [b] Jet Set - that &#036;50 million you refer to is more like &#036;250 million and it was given to aid programs in Afganistan to help their people. It was not simply handed to the Taliban for the war on drugs like you and Michael Moore bilthely assert. You are being reduced to Moore-ish talking points, all while ripping on Ann Coulter, funny.
    [/b][/quote]

    And you&#39;re reduced to chiding me for not realizing that the good ol Taliban could be trusted with 250 million right before we went and invaded them anyway. I can dredge up the link that shows the citation for the 50 million, as I did months ago on this thread. Where&#39;s your link about the 250, and what the hell was it supposed to go to? Buying more burquas and whips to help keep women in their place??

    No matter what spin you put on it, this is actually a perfect example of the exact sort of big spending and aiding nations of dubious terrorist support that you guys have been accusing Clinton and the "liberal ideology" of for years. It was a waste of money, and it was a poor regime to ever support in any form let alone our continuing support for Saudi Arabia and treating their corrupt sheiks and Bin Laden cousins like royalty because they&#39;re golfing buddies with George HW Bush.

    You paint a good argument about only trusting State Dept "intelligence" when it vindicates certain viewpoints, but we&#39;ve all been guilty of this. And it&#39;s absolutely true every time someone like Weeb refutes a "missing WMD" link with another "Saddam is a big Al-Queda backer" source. All you&#39;re doing is painting the discrepancy to favor your side.

    When it comes back to it, the last 3-4 pages from the "conservative" side of the argument have gone back to screaming about how the Iraq invasion was absolutely necessary to prevent another 9/11. When pushed to explain, you went back to your long-consistent arguments about how this would have been necessary 12 years ago regardless of 9/11, which I can respect. Sackfrance reverted to screaming "Saddam HAD to be involved, and you liberal fags suck for not supporting Bush".

    Look, I realize clearly that some of you think that the Iraq campaign is a centerpiece of preventing terrorism, even if it doesn&#39;t have anything to do with 9/11. The conservatives here have expressed their rationale 100 times, to varying degrees of clarity and consistency. I simply disagree, and see NOTHING news-wise that has come out in the last 4 months that proves the Iraq thing was worth the lives and money it costed and will continue to cost.

    At some point, your "look we haven&#39;t been attacked" argument requires some proof that any Saddam-related weapon or plot was uncovered. Free-associating 9/11 to scapegoat Clinton, vindicate anything Bush does, etc. doesn&#39;t make your point any more valid than when it&#39;s used as an argument against Bush II. I&#39;ve NEVER claimed George W. Bush was responsible for 9/11, but when people go off on their "Blame Clinton" logic -- I think it can be equally argued he had as much a chance to thwart it as Clinton, Bush I, or Reagan did with each&#39;s degree of involvement in intelligence reports, arrest/bombing attempts, and ever giving these ****ers aid in the first place -- Soviet threat or not. The truth is, NONE of these Presidents realized it was a problem until it was too late. We can argue all we want about how to prevent it again, but no single President is singlehandedly "at fault" for letting 9/11 happen.

    And as for "exploiting the deaths", last I checked it wasn&#39;t the Democratic Party that wants to hold their convention at Ground Zero. Again, people with a political agenda on ANY side are going to be using 9/11 as an argument a LOT for the next 1, 5, maybe 20 years even if nothing worse ever happens to us. Claiming this to be some kind of exclusively liberal disease is a joke. [/b][/quote]
    Jet Set -

    Do you allow for the possibility that Saddam could have already supplied terrorist groups with bio or chem weapons at some point during the past 12 years and would have continued to do so if not removed? Do you also agree that he would have NEVER complied fully with UN inspcetions? Do you also agree that stationing troops in Saudi Arabia to protect them from Saddam&#39;s regional aggression and to help with the constant fly-overs needed to protect the Kurds, among other things, was expensive, so that whinings oabout cost would seem disengenious, especially by people who have no concept of scale? Do you not acknlwegde that Saddam had 4 years of unfettered time on which to develop more WMD and distribute them to teorrists groups? This is in addtion to the knownand unaccounted for WMD. Do you not acknowledge that it was only Bush&#39;s stationing of 250,000 troops in Kuwait in mid 2002 that even got Saddam to pretend to cooperate. "Hey - here&#39;s my final weapons arsenal report." "oops - those missiles I&#39;m not supposed to have and said I didn&#39;t have? Well, it turns out I do have them, but everyone should no give me credit for admitting it and destroying 16 of the 400 that I never had, wait, have."

    I can understand that you justify your pre-war opinions based on the fact that Newsweek and Time magazine have yet to put a WMD Warehouse on their covers, but again, you seem a bit inconsistent. There is not "no evidence" liken you assert. I could post links and have recently, but you will no be swayed. Even if we had already or do find WMD you will say it&#39;s not that much, or that inspections had contained him or that he couldn&#39;t use them or any other myriad of arguments - your mind was made up beforehand and cannot be changed regarding Iraq. That&#39;s fine. Mine was made up beforehand too, I suppose.

    In your very last post you say, &#39;Well, we can&#39;t blame any single person or Prez - no one knew exactly the extent of the threat of terrorism before 9-11." Yet you then say afterwards that we, essentially "jumped the gun" in Iraq and that we can&#39;t "prove" anything. and thus, there never really wasn&#39;t a threat, because I cna&#39;t see one, yet you basically say that we completely didn&#39;t see an existing threat regarding 9-11. As if we could have proved anything before 9-11&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Did you see the papers today- 9-11 was being plotted for 5 years.

    You know damn well that if Ashcrfot and Co rounded up those guys and said that they were planning to kill tens of thousands of Amercians, hijack ten planes and destroy buildings and that Bush was sending troops into Afaganistan you&#39;d be saying he "overestimated" the terror threat and was a fear-mongering fascist who trampled on the rights of "undocumented students." You&#39;d post link after link of ACLU-esque critique&#39;s of every minor point in question and accuse Bush of being an imperialist. You KNOW this.

    How is the GOP convention being at Ground Zero "exploitative?" Don&#39;t you see the irony of accusing the GOP of "exploiting" the deaths? By drawing attention to the GOP, and thereby trying to score political points with that accusation, YOU are exploiting the deaths for political gain just as much, whether you see it or not. The Dems fear a Ground Zero convention will be politically successful, so they accuse Bush of &#39;exploitation&#39; to score points themselves. If they are truly that principled and the exploitation that obvious, why not just let the convention run its course - the people will decide if it is or not. Ah, but no, again, we see no principles.

    Is Ted Kennedy exploiting the deaths of soldiers in Iraq to score cheap political points with his rhetoric, I wonder? What was he saying in 1998? Why can&#39;t he run for Prez? Oh, riiight - the getting-drunk-and-murdering thing, too bad.

    Incidentally - if you think that editing techinque was the only fraudulent thing in Bowling, you are simply misinformed. It does not even qualify as a documentary, sorry.

    [url=http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp]http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp[/url]

  16. #236
    5ever:

    I appreciate you continuing to make intelligent responses without namecalling, unlike some other recent guests to this thread.

    But I disagree with almost every one of your points.

    [i]Do you allow for the possibility that Saddam could have already supplied terrorist groups with bio or chem weapons at some point during the past 12 years and would have continued to do so if not removed? Do you also agree that he would have NEVER complied fully with UN inspcetions? Do you also agree that stationing troops in Saudi Arabia to protect them from Saddam&#39;s regional aggression and to help with the constant fly-overs needed to protect the Kurds, among other things, was expensive, so that whinings oabout cost would seem disengenious, especially by people who have no concept of scale?"[/i]

    If he had already supplied these chemical weapons, where are the attacks? Why waste all this time with elaborate suicide hijacking if all Al-Queda had to do was drop some of Saddam&#39;s aerosol into the NY Subway? Sorry, the burden of proof is on you if you&#39;re latest justification is that "he already gave his WMDs to our enemies". Show me any documentation of current terrorist cells having gifts in a can from Saddam. And again, I was not against a coalition removing Saddam per se. I was against the way Bush waged this war and knowingly distorted post-9/11 "facts" to achieve a long-decided agenda that has little to do with 9/11 or even "the war on terrorism".

    [i]I can understand that you justify your pre-war opinions based on the fact that Newsweek and Time magazine have yet to put a WMD Warehouse on their covers, but again, you seem a bit inconsistent. There is not "no evidence" liken you assert. I could post links and have recently, but you will no be swayed. Even if we had already or do find WMD you will say it&#39;s not that much, or that inspections had contained him or that he couldn&#39;t use them or any other myriad of arguments - your mind was made up beforehand and cannot be changed regarding Iraq. That&#39;s fine. Mine was made up beforehand too, I suppose. [/i]

    Not one of those links has been conclusively proven. If it were, it WOULD be in Time, The Economist, and Newsweek as the smoking gun Bush (and a majority of the American public on both sides) had been waiting for. Unless you really believe the "liberal media" would suppress a huge juicy story with lots of sexy and scary pictures in favor of keeping Bush&#39;s approval rating down. Surely you can&#39;t be that "conspiracy" minded??

    What you and others have posted repeatedly have been "reports of alleged" stuff that has either never been followed up on, or turned out to be something else entirely -- those mobile weapons labs (VAAAAAANS down by the River) being a prime example. At one point you even admitted you had expected to see more evidence by now, but it seems you&#39;re already phasing your rhetoric into the "Saddam moved them all to Syria because the damn liberals stalled Bush" theory that is the latest right-wing blog astroturf to make its rounds.

    [i]In your very last post you say, &#39;Well, we can&#39;t blame any single person or Prez - no one knew exactly the extent of the threat of terrorism before 9-11." Yet you then say afterwards that we, essentially "jumped the gun" in Iraq and that we can&#39;t "prove" anything. and thus, there never really wasn&#39;t a threat, because I cna&#39;t see one, yet you basically say that we completely didn&#39;t see an existing threat regarding 9-11. As if we could have proved anything before 9-11&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Did you see the papers today- 9-11 was being plotted for 5 years.

    You know damn well that if Ashcrfot and Co rounded up those guys and said that they were planning to kill tens of thousands of Amercians, hijack ten planes and destroy buildings and that Bush was sending troops into Afaganistan you&#39;d be saying he "overestimated" the terror threat and was a fear-mongering fascist who trampled on the rights of "undocumented students." You&#39;d post link after link of ACLU-esque critique&#39;s of every minor point in question and accuse Bush of being an imperialist. You KNOW this.[/i]

    Nope, I&#39;m still waiting for the big "plot" to be unraveled. I&#39;ve told you multiple times I have pretty low sympathy for people illegally immigrated here compared to naturalized or US born true citizens, even (unfortunately) the ones claiming asylum and escaping crappy situations. Something DID have to be done post 9/11 to hone in on terrorism, and beefing up customs security, kicking the crap out of the Taliban, and being more aggressive about INS checkups for non-naturalized people are things I have been in favor of consistently since we started bickering here about it.

    Your above paragraphs are the typical conservative argument that whiny liberals need a mushroom cloud over NYC to "accept the proof". How about ANY evidence of a "massive WMD program", a proven plot with A-Q terrorists (who, whether you admit it or not, we are diverting attention and resources from in this 100 billion 200,000 troop Iraq sham), or any of the things touted for the past 2 years by Bush backers about the "threat" Iraq poses to our country?

    And no, I would not whine about ejecting 19 people, half of whom had illegal papers, if a massive plot had been unravelled about them. Just was I was not the least bit outraged by the capturing and trial of the 1993 WTC bombers. The only thing I&#39;ve ever *****ed about is American citizens (and to a lesser extent, middle eastern restaurants) being harrassed out of nowhere for absolutely ridiculous tips or botched &#39;leads&#39;, and permanent legislature that removed checks and balances from being part of any HSA investigation by zealous officers. If there&#39;s juicy dirt on a possible AQ cell, then they should have no problem getting a 24-hr judge to approve and document the planned arrest for basic CYA if nothing else.

    I know the HSA has its work cut out for it preventing terrorist threats, and that some bum tips and interrogation are necessary in this process, but I have yet to see the big "busted plot" you are lording over me in this argument -- either from Saddam or all the &#39;guilty until proven innocent&#39; Falafel joint owners in NYC.

    [i]How is the GOP convention being at Ground Zero "exploitative?" Don&#39;t you see the irony of accusing the GOP of "exploiting" the deaths? By drawing attention to the GOP, and thereby trying to score political points with that accusation, YOU are exploiting the deaths for political gain just as much, whether you see it or not. The Dems fear a Ground Zero convention will be politically successful, so they accuse Bush of &#39;exploitation&#39; to score points themselves. If they are truly that principled and the exploitation that obvious, why not just let the convention run its course - the people will decide if it is or not. Ah, but no, again, we see no principles.
    [/i]

    Sorry dude, this is pretzel logic if it ever existed. I&#39;m NOT running for office next November nor holding a convention at Ground Zero. So no matter what criticisms you want to make of my criticisms (is that anything like a comittee on committees? :D ), the first-hand and big "gesture" being made here still falls 100% on the party that decided to hold their convention at Ground Zero. Exactly what purpose does that serve? I don&#39;t think anyone has forgotten 9/11 or the WTC coming down, so the "never forget&#39; angle seems pretty weak here. It&#39;s cheap theatrics just like the cheesy fight suit landing, designed to rouse up people who&#39;s basic understanding of the post-9/11 world is "9/11 was caused by A-rabs, Bush ain&#39;t afraid to go and kill A-rabs, bring &#39;em on&#33;"

    I do agree with you about Ted Kennedy, but I am curious if he has solid evidence on funds being "mishandled" and hidden in terms of paying off allies. If he does, he should go to Congress with that instead of drumming up salvos for the Press from his smug perch in New England.

    Since you&#39;re suddenly factoring in "the expense of protecting Saudi Arabia from Saddam all these years", does it strike you as a tad ironic that we could have just let Saddam invade them and THEN had all the "evidence" we need to justify conquering Baghdad with the support and troop/money sharing of all NATO/UN forces? The people who buy the far-right "All Arabs are bastards" line should be more gung-ho about this than someone like me, who is only factoring in protecting Americans first and not the regime that oppresses its people and spawned more than half the 9/11 hijackers.

    Or would have have destabilized too much of Chevron and Exxon-Mobil&#39;s holdings, and infuriated Bush&#39;s investment partners?

  17. #237
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Sep 22 2003, 01:29 PM
    [b] Good one Comeback.

    Tailgators is an emotional child. [/b][/quote]
    Who just happens to be right.

    5-ever is an arrogant jerk&#33;

  18. #238
    I&#39;ve been kinda supporting this move and glad it has finally come to this since this country is and should NOT be our "allies", but do ANY of the conservative people touting "Do XXX and the terrorists will have won" angle here fail to see the irony in the US basically fulfilling Osama Bin Laden&#39;s main objective 2 years and 7 days to the day after the attack? He recruited Al-Queda operatives on the "outrage" that the Americans kept bases and military personnel on HIS country. And we still haven&#39;t found the ****er either.

    Maybe he&#39;ll be happy about this and have mercy on us. Jesus said "turn the other cheek", after all. <_<

    Or you could claim that this is abjectly false since it&#39;s in the NY Times and not on Fox News. Did anyone angrily toss a cigarette butt into the river while being quoted for this report? :rolleyes: (inside joke for 5ever from the early days on this thread)

    [i]Last American Combat Troops Quit Saudi Arabia
    By DON VAN NATTA Jr.


    IYADH, Saudi Arabia, Sept. 18 ó The last few American combat troops pulled out of the Prince Sultan Air Base here earlier this month, officially closing the Persian Gulf headquarters used by the Air Force during both Iraq wars and concluding a nearly 13-year run of extensive United States military operations in Saudi Arabia.

    The withdrawal signaled the end of a long strategic arrangement, mutually beneficial until it fell victim to tensions resulting from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, in which 15 of 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens. Since then, the countries&#39; fragile diplomatic relations have undergone considerable strain ó only worsened in recent months by the American military presence in the kingdom, American and Saudi officials said here this week.

    As one American diplomatic official based in the region put it, "on both sides, actually, the alliance had become a little bit of poison, and both sides were glad to see it end."............[/i]

    [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/22/international/middleeast/22SAUD.html?ex=1065204114&ei=1&en=e6a6c4fcc65c604b]http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/22/internat...6a6c4fcc65c604b[/url]

  19. #239
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [b]Jet Set -[/b]

    Ditto on your sentiments.

    (Both of us are too long-winded to keep quoting all the time)


    I just completely disagree with you on your first point. The entire world knows Saddam did have massive amounts of WMD and an active program. The UN and even France do not dispute this. Notice how it is only American politicians who are shrieking about "WMD?&#33;?&#33;?" - not UN diplomats, not French leaders, not German leaders. The argument prior to the war was what was the most efficacious method of of disarmament, not whether or not disarmament was needed. My "justification" for the war does not and never have involved 9-11 or the fact that Saddam was &#39;giving WMD to terrorists.&#39; You know this. I have maintained all along that we should have never stopped our march towards Baghdad in 1991 and that Saddam&#39;s 12 years of open defiance of us was not a smart thing to tolerate. The WHERE ARE THE WMD questions AMAZE me, they really do. I admit that I probably would have expected more by now, but this is in no way an indication that Saddam didnít or never had WMD. I said prior to the war that Saddam most likely destroyed or smuggled away his WMD quickly prior to invasion. Scores of Iraqi scientists have said that they destroyed chemicals, labs, in the build-up. People always talk about "rushing" to war, even though it was a pro-tracted 7-month affair, surely giving Saddam ample time to prepare. The same liberals who now shriek "Liar&#33; No WMDs&#33;" are the same ones who used the threat of a WMD against our troops as a reason to oppose invasion&#33; This doesn&#39;t even include the fact that these same party leaders attacked Iraq in 1998, saying that inspections didn&#39;t work and that someday, someway, Saddam would use his stock.

    I also disagree that Bush distorted facts - name one, name a single fact that Bush distorted. Are you saying that Iraq didn&#39;t support terrorism? Again - you want a friggin document showing exactly who Saddam gave his WMD to all these years? Here&#39;s a question - if it doesn&#39;t offend your Saddam-as-innocent viewpoint: Why the hell did he want and pursue WMD? Seriously. Why would he have needed them? I mean, he didn&#39;t support terror, he hated OBL, he knew that if he used them openly that he would be invaded. Yet, all he had to do was prove that he didn&#39;t have them anymore and had destroyed them, and he would have made billions more once the American embargo was lifted. His sons would still be alive. Do you have something even close to an explanation for this seemingly ridiculous set of circumstances? Do you not acknowledge Saddam&#39;s well-known pursuit of nuclear weaponry?

    In the last 12 years, the ONLY way Saddam could have "used" his WMD would be to distribute them to terrorists and to hide his tracks.

    Where are the attacks or documents? Honestly, that is a ridiculous stance to take. We can talk about WMD further after David Kay issues his report because clearly, we disagree here. The burden was on Saddam to "prove" that he DIDN&#39;T have WMD, since the world knew he did. Bush didn&#39;t just make this up, dude.

    Also - I am not "phasing" my rhetoric. You operate on many unproved assumptions, as do I. Earlier you posted that Saddam probably gave his WMD to terrorists because Bush invaded, and that by invading Bush had actually precipitated the very events he was trying to prevent. This is all well and good, save for the fact that it contains the same logical fallacies you accuse me of engaging in. Where are the documents, dude? Surely you wouldn&#39;t make a bold charge like that without proper supporting " proof" right? Cause it would be pretty disingenuous to only apply flawed logic to scenarios that attack Bush, rather than support him. If you are willing to believe, without proof, that Saddam distributed WMD in the buildup, why are you not willing to believe, without proof, that he did so in the years prior? Hmm....


    It is also not true that "not one" of my links have been conclusively proven. It&#39;s just that the threshold for a &#39;smoking gun&#39; by news organizations that opposed the war [i]a priori [/i]is quite high. There is tons of confirmed evidence, some people just ignore it. &#39;Well, yeah, AQ and Iraq officials met and all that, but seriously, Saddam is secular and OBL religious - so they COULDN&#39;T work together." Yet you have a stricter "burden" of proof put upon me? You know damn well many on the left operate from an intuitive assumption about OBL&#39;s and Saddam&#39;s compatibility. You also know that you cannot prove a negative, yet the left doesnít let that stop their rhetoric. You can&#39;t "prove" that Iraq and 9-11 or Iraq and AQ weren&#39;t &#39;connected&#39; - you can simply repeat that a zillion times and dismiss every piece of evidence as it emerges in order to further that unprovable theory. You also know damn well that intelligence is limited by definition, that foreign policy is not a courtroom and that leaders of nations have to make decisions on incomplete, conflicting or otherwise &#39;foggy&#39; intelligence. You also know that there is a crapload of stuff that&#39;s still classified.

    How&#39;s this for you: The BBC runs a story claiming some senior defense official admits to sexing up a document on Iraq. (This from the same BBC reporter who misrepresented American advances during the actual war &#39;they&#39;re not in Baghdad, etc") So it turns out that 1) the guy is not as senior as the BBC made him out to be (isn&#39;t even in the defense ministry at all) and that 2) he said no such thing about the document.

    So, the BBC is completely caught in a lie. This reporter ADMITS lying. Blair feverishly defends himself and the BBC attacks him for that. So they falsely accuse Blair of lying and then get pissed when he responds forcefully to that lie. This guy Kelley commit suicide over the ordeal and the BBC blames Blair&#33;

    Now - what page would you expect the reporter&#39;s admissions of lying to be on? Page 1, with a screaming headline exonerating Blair and bashing the BBC for treachery? Surely, Andrew Gilliganís admission that he not only lied about who Kelley was but also about what he said is a &#39;smoking gun&#39; in this issue, right? WRONG&#33; It is buried. Barely mentioned on page 16 of the NY Times. Not on the cover of the FT and buried even by the BBC itself&#33;&#33;&#33; Amazing, right? No, it is not.

    This is a different issue, but it is evidentiary of what is going on.

    Honestly - I never considered that a GOP convention at Ground Zero was exploitative until you mentioned. Parties have conventions all over the place, why is the burden of proof on the GOP? New York represents a lot of electoral votes, no? You know damn well even if the convention was in some other section of NYC you&#39;d still be complaining about exploitation, so spare me. The Dems are trying to gain political advantage by the exploitation charge, you know it. If you are inclined to believe in Bush-as-evil arguments, which you clearly are, then the exploitation follows. Honestly, you can belittle people for wanting to "kill Arabs" all you want, but the exploitation argument only holds weight with the "I am emotional and uninformed, but Bush is evil&#33;" demographic.

    You write well and are a clear thinker - but you cannot disguise where you are coming from. You think Bush is lying about everything and only invaded Iraq to enrich his oil buddies. Not only does Bush not care whether or not invading Iraq makes us safer, he is willing to make things worse in order to enrich these oil buddies. Bush didn&#39;t cause 9-11, but he is quietly happy about it because he now has a green light to be imperialistic.

    I disagree. We are both bright guys who have obviously examined the same data and come to polar conclusions. Hey, it happens.

    I enjoy our debates. Did you get a chance to read that review of Bowling? I&#39;d be interested to hear your thoughts. Some of it was nit-picky, but most of it is right on, IMO.

  20. #240
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Sep 22 2003, 03:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Sep 22 2003, 03:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever[/i]@Sep 22 2003, 01:29 PM
    [b] Good one Comeback.

    Tailgators is an emotional child. [/b][/quote]
    Who just happens to be right.

    5-ever is an arrogant jerk&#33; [/b][/quote]
    C&#39;mon - I&#39;m not a jerk&#33;

    Go easy, just defending my boy gmogmo from your attack on the other thread. Take it easy, man.

    "Calmer than you are dude...."

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us