It was Republican who leaked CIA secret jails

[libertarian_knight]

Not an emotional wreck? Hmmmmm...I wonder who is obsessed with plastering the site with any scrap of bash material that can be drudged up? I wonder who's threads are started, not with some questions of debate, but a more "in your face" Republican theme instead? Please. It's more comical than anything else. Maybe you can dig up a story on how President Bush and the Republican Party are killing the rain forest because they use more toilet paper than the Democrats too.:roll:

Morality? I love this tactic. The global left is perhaps the most morally decrepit and inconsistent people on the planet. Want a commentary?

Here are two questions....

1) Is it moral to turn our backs on a people that are being abused and oppressed by a tyrannical dictator?

or

2) Is it moral to destroy said dictator's regime and allow the abused to create their own democratic government? (Thereby helping our interests along the way, of course.)

It's a simple question..let's hear about morality and how the Republicans "need" all they can get. Answer?

Well, if it's an either or option, couldn't the problem be that the administration is doing both, currently? And what's more, actually finaincially supporting some of the tyrants, and even playing pattycake with others....

 

[danarhea]

Well, if it's an either or option, couldn't the problem be that the administration is doing both, currently? And what's more, actually finaincially supporting some of the tyrants, and even playing pattycake with others....

Of course, that is true, and dont forget that it was the US which overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh of Iran, and installed the Shah of Iran, then when the Islamic fundamentalists overthrew him, brought Hussein to power in Iraq to counterbalance Iran, and days after Hussein gassed the Kurds, we have the famous picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with him. Of course, it was not to overthrow an evil dictator. We supported that same dictator until he bit the hand that was feeding him. And remember the reason we went to war, and the reason Bush gave on TV? WMD's which did not exist. Who else remembers mushroom clouds and the ability to possibly hit the US with them? You know, I thought Clinton was bad, but Bush is much worse. This administration is the most hypocritical in the history of our nation.

 

[libertarian_knight]

I say rather often is GWB makes Bill Clinton look like the best president ever. I could not WAIT for the democrats to get out of office, I was rather elated the dems were ousted and GWB was in (though I did not vote for him). I didn't think a president could be worse than clinton ("relations" and perjury aside. I faulted Clinton for not having better taste in women more than anything in that regard. Politically, faulted him for many and more serious offenses and breeches)

I was happy a states-rights, smaller government man was in going to be prez. Turned out to be just another big-government jerk...

 

[danarhea]

I say rather often is GWB makes Bill Clinton look like the best president ever. I could not WAIT for the democrats to get out of office, I was rather elated the dems were ousted and GWB was in (though I did not vote for him). I didn't think a president could be worse than clinton ("relations" and perjury aside. I faulted Clinton for not having better taste in women more than anything in that regard. Politically, faulted him for many and more serious offenses and breeches)

I was happy a states-rights, smaller government man was in going to be prez. Turned out to be just another big-government jerk...

Yea, Clinton was terrible, and I was glad to see him go. I voted for Buchanan in 2000, but was not that disappointed with Bush at first. He handled Afghanistan beautifully. However, since then, he and his Neocon buddies have become Liberalism on steroids. I voted for Badnarik last year. Although Libertarian, the argument can still be made that Badnarik was the only real Conservative candidate running.

 

[Binary_Digit]

]Here are two questions....

1) Is it moral to turn our backs on a people that are being abused and oppressed by a tyrannical dictator?

or

2) Is it moral to destroy said dictator's regime and allow the abused to create their own democratic government? (Thereby helping our interests along the way, of course.)

It's a simple question..let's hear about morality and how the Republicans "need" all they can get. Answer?

America is not the world's police. There are too many "tyrannical dictators" in the world to make it our policy to overthrow them on that basis. Somalia should remind us that our help is not always wanted, even by the people we're supposed to be helping. We should promote human rights through dialog, and by setting a good example, not with military force.

If they invade another country, then they should be stopped. If they refuse to hand over known terrorists, then military action is justified. Genocide and ethnic cleansing should be stopped by a multi-national force. No one nation should take any rogue military action, except for direct self-defense.

The civilized nations should collectively decide if invading a tyrannical dictator for the good of his own people is "moral" or not. They should listen to each other, and they should share an equal burden in what is decided.

 

[Deegan]

what the hell is with fortune cookie length political commentary? so many Americans seem to have the attention span of a retarded hamster. I mean would rational people actually think that the totality of political thought is lumped up into one 20-word statement? I know I can get wooooordy, and have to limit myself, but I just wish some people would make an effort.

I agree, tax and spend is bad, but these jerks in office are borrow and spend kings, and make FDR look like Henry David Thoroeau. What's worse, is borrowing has to be paid back, and these pricks know that tax renevue (which they do not have, thus the borrowing) will have to increase. They aren't going to get another internet boom for the economy, so that mean 1) inflation or 2) increasing taxes. which SUCKS

oh yeah, they have choosen the inflation route too, look at the GDP reports, horrible stuff, in five short years.

EDIT
incidentally, this first paragraph is not necessarily direct toward the quoted chatter, but rather the behavior at large. I don't know people here enough yet, and the poster in particular to figure out whether he's a retarded hamster or not. Just tired, in general, having seen better political commentary spew forth from the guts of drunk high school cheerleaders, in steamy piles on the wintery sidewalks of my city.

Americans do have short attention spans........what was it you were saying again, oh that's right, nothing important.

I am so sorry I didn't fill my post with empty verbage, and anti-Americanism, but I like to be direct. As for your ramblings, I would perfer you keep it short as well, high school cheerleaders, and steaming piles of what ever, this lends absolutely nothing to the discussion, other then feeding your over sized ego.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Americans do have short attention spans........what was it you were saying again, oh that's right, nothing important.

cute

I am so sorry I didn't fill my post with empty verbage, and anti-Americanism, but I like to be direct. As for your ramblings, I would perfer you keep it short as well, high school cheerleaders, and steaming piles of what ever, this lends absolutely nothing to the discussion, other then feeding your over sized ego.

Like I said, it wasn't necessarily directed at you, since I don't know you. But all over forums, and political chat rooms, cookie cutter responses have been the overall theme lately. Being upset about a trend of deteriorating political insight and commentary in America is not being anti-American, it's being anti-Stupid and anti-lazy. Stupidity and laziness are not attributes of real Americans. It was a little more side topic, but I am glad to see you latched on to the extraneous information, rather than the pertinent parts of the response, directed at you.

to refresh the memory:

I agree, tax and spend is bad, but these jerks in office are borrow and spend kings, and make FDR look like Henry David Thoroeau. What's worse, is borrowing has to be paid back, and these pricks know that tax renevue (which they do not have, thus the borrowing) will have to increase. They aren't going to get another internet boom for the economy, so that mean 1) inflation or 2) increasing taxes. which SUCKS

oh yeah, they have choosen the inflation route too, look at the GDP reports, horrible stuff, in five short years.

So we have now an 8 Trillion+ dollar National Debt, Concealed inflation (CPI is not the cause of inflation, and a general rise in prices can be masked for a time), record spending levels, projected deficits for a decade, and a war with no end in sight. At least with tax a spend, there is no interest payment. Mind you, Democrats we more shift and spend than anything themselves.

 

[MSgt]

Well, if it's an either or option, couldn't the problem be that the administration is doing both, currently? And what's more, actually finaincially supporting some of the tyrants, and even playing pattycake with others....

And at the heart of it is your American interests. Sucks to be a hypocrit doesn't it?

 

[MSgt]

Of course, that is true, and dont forget that it was the US which overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh of Iran, and installed the Shah of Iran, then when the Islamic fundamentalists overthrew him, brought Hussein to power in Iraq to counterbalance Iran, and days after Hussein gassed the Kurds, we have the famous picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with him. Of course, it was not to overthrow an evil dictator. We supported that same dictator until he bit the hand that was feeding him. And remember the reason we went to war, and the reason Bush gave on TV? WMD's which did not exist. Who else remembers mushroom clouds and the ability to possibly hit the US with them? You know, I thought Clinton was bad, but Bush is much worse. This administration is the most hypocritical in the history of our nation.

So we told him to gas the Kurds? We told him to invade Kuwait? We told him to pay off terrorists? We told Bin Ladden to repay our help against the Soviets by attacking our military for a decade because his government allowed the western world to park their militaries in his "holy land" during the Gulf War? We told him to drop a some planes on our soil? We told Khomeini to brutalize Islam in Iran? We told the leadership of the Middle East to refrain from building world class universities, libraries, wide spread infrastructure, frown upon freedom of the press, subjugate their women, and refrain from building any kind of a future for their youth?

Perhaps we should do absolutely nothing and just let the world go to hell and involve ourselves with world wars which costs 10s of millions of lives as Europe needs us instead.:roll:

 

[libertarian_knight]

And at the heart of it is your American interests. Sucks to be a hypocrit doesn't it?

huh? You think my interests are served by propping up tyrants? no, not mine. My interests are served when tyrants are skewered on the sharp stick or pitchfork. My American Interests are served when Liberty and Justice are the ends of my Government.

If I wanted my government to behave like thugs, I would move to a thug-run country. I want America to be something different, and better, not more of the same **** we've had for three millenia.

Novus Ordo Seclorum, "New Order for the Ages" not "More of the same garbage forever."

 

[danarhea]

So we told him to gas the Kurds? We told him to invade Kuwait? We told him to pay off terrorists? We told Bin Ladden to repay our help against the Soviets by attacking our military for a decade because his government allowed the western world to park their militaries in his "holy land" during the Gulf War? We told him to drop a some planes on our soil? We told Khomeini to brutalize Islam in Iran? We told the leadership of the Middle East to refrain from building world class universities, libraries, wide spread infrastructure, frown upon freedom of the press, subjugate their women, and refrain from building any kind of a future for their youth?

Perhaps we should do absolutely nothing and just let the world go to hell and involve ourselves with world wars which costs 10s of millions of lives as Europe needs us instead.:roll:

1) I bolded the relevant part. We shook his hand days after he gassed the Kurds, even though we knew what he did.

2) As far as Kuwait goes, we were right to go in because of that. After all, Hussein DID invade and occupy another nation. What Bush Sr. did in not going all the way to baghdad shows how smart he was. In his speech defending his decision to pull back from going all the way, Bush recited intel which showed that we would be bogged down in an occupation that would last for years, which would put our troops unnecessarily in harms way, and most importantly, create a power vacuum which would be filled by Shiite extremists, thus ruining any chance for a counterbalance in the region. Before you slam Bush's father, we are talking about a man who was not only president, but was a former head of the CIA. Bush Sr. knew what he was talking about, had excellent intellect, and used the brains that God gave him. The same cannot be said about the son.

3) You still show your dishonesty by attempting to tie al Qaeda and Iraq together, when that has already been completely refuted.

4) As for bin Laden, we gave him the power to do what he did, and he bit the hand that fed him, just as Hussein did. That is the problem when you take the Machiavellian and Marxist approach to foreign policy, in which the ends justify the means. The means usually come home to roost.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Seems that, nowadays, the Bushneviks can no longer torture people in secret jails without members of their own party spilling the beans. Said Trent Lott, "we can't keep our mouths shut". That is good, and to the Republican Senator or staffer who let the cat out of the bag, kudos to you, and may you have a long and successful political career. We need more like you in government.

Article is here.

B.S. it was a Dem who leaked it, do you really think a Rep would leak info meant to ruin Republican chances of reelection in the 06 races for the House and Senate? Get real, that and I demand that whoever did leak the info be held to the most stringent penalties under the law!

 

[danarhea]

B.S. it was a Dem who leaked it, do you really think a Rep would leak info meant to ruin Republican chances of reelection in the 06 races for the House and Senate? Get real, that and I demand that whoever did leak the info be held to the most stringent penalties under the law!

I didnt know Cheney was a Democrat. He is the one who said a Republican leaked it.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I didnt know Cheney was a Democrat. He is the one who said a Republican leaked it.

And when did you start believing Cheney? And how the hell would he know anyways? This is an obvious political ploy and if it was a Rep staffer he was a Dem plant.

 

[BWG]

I was going to respond to this, but......(continued below)

B.S. it was a Dem who leaked it, do you really think a Rep would leak info meant to ruin Republican chances of reelection in the 06 races for the House and Senate?

First, you say it was a Dem.

Get real, that and I demand that whoever did leak the info be held to the most stringent penalties under the law!

Then, you say you don't know

This is an obvious political ploy and if it was a Rep staffer he was a Dem plant.

(comment continued)...you fully explained it here.:lol:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I was going to respond to this, but......(continued below)




First, you say it was a Dem.




Then, you say you don't know




(comment continued)...you fully explained it here.:lol:

Title of thread: It was Republican who leaked CIA secret jails.

Truth: No one (save for the person who leaked it and people at the Washington Post) know for sure.

Truth: This leak was a calculated effort to draw support for the Democrats and hurt Republican reelection chances in 06.

Truth: Major liberal media outlets won't cover the story because they know as well as anybody with a semblance of political intuition that it was a Democrat (or Democratic plant) who leaked it.

 

[libertarian_knight]

B.S. it was a Dem who leaked it, do you really think a Rep would leak info meant to ruin Republican chances of reelection in the 06 races for the House and Senate? Get real, that and I demand that whoever did leak the info be held to the most stringent penalties under the law!

I am not sure, but I think there could be no penalty for leaking this information. Unlike the CIA-Agent leak issue, an agent with a classified relationship with the US government was not Identified. Also, the leaker may well be shielded using the Whistle Blower statute, that allows for exposing illegal activity. Though I am not entirely certain how Whistle blower plays with classified information, assuming of course, this was classified.

A government that keeps secrets, is one that fears it population.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I am not sure, but I think there could be no penalty for leaking this information. Unlike the CIA-Agent leak issue, an agent with a classified relationship with the US government was not Identified. Also, the leaker may well be shielded using the Whistle Blower statute, that allows for exposing illegal activity. Though I am not entirely certain how Whistle blower plays with classified information, assuming of course, this was classified.

A government that keeps secrets, is one that fears it population.

Classified infos classified info and Plame wasn't covert according to independent prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald I think they need to investigate Wilson.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Classified infos classified info and Plame wasn't covert according to independent prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald I think they need to investigate Wilson.

If Plame wasn't covert, there was no crime to investigate, and therefor he would have ended the, so-far,two year investigation the day he learned of her realtionships with the US government as not being classified. Brewster Jennings wasn't a front company either huh?

So, again, why was there 1) a call for an investigation into the identification of an agent with a classified reltionship, and 2) why was there an investigation into the disclore of the identity of an agent with a classified relationship, if there was no classified relationship?

And remember, though the a Grand Jury's term has expired, does NOT MEAN THE INVESTIGATION IS EVEN OVER YET, as had ACTUALLY been pointed out by Fitzsgerald. The Investigation is STILL commencing.

Also, please post a quote and source of Fitzgerald stating the Agent (who I believe he deems "covert" in the Libby indictment) is does not have a classified-reltionship with the US government that qualifies as "covert."

Here are some things to read
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/iv/toc.html
The USC regarding the plame issue

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_pr_28102005.pdf
From the OSP Fitzgerald and "...and subsequently disclosed to reporters the then-classified information concerning the employment of Valarie Wilson by the Central Intelligence Agency"
Fitzgarlad wrote this and affirms, Valarie Wilson did a classified relationship with the US Government. (if you read the USC 50 Ch.15 Law I posted for you, a "classified relationship" with the US goverment is a significant portion of the definition of "covert.")

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf
In Count 1, section one, paragraph f. Fitzgerald re-affirms Varalie Plame was "...employed by the CIA, and her employement Status was Classified."

So, in two official Documents Fitzgerald affirms the classified relationship between Plame and the US government.

and for further, and besital reading 18 USC 793 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=793
for more National Security Information law.

<sniff sniff> I sense I smoked ya

 

[libertarian_knight]

the good part of 18 USC 793 from above

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control
over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book,
signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint,
plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the
national defense, or information relating to the national defense
which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used
to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any
foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or
causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to
communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated,
delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to
receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it
on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled
to receive it; or [Emphasis mine]

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both.

 

[MSgt]

huh? You think my interests are served by propping up tyrants? no, not mine. My interests are served when tyrants are skewered on the sharp stick or pitchfork. My American Interests are served when Liberty and Justice are the ends of my Government.

If I wanted my government to behave like thugs, I would move to a thug-run country. I want America to be something different, and better, not more of the same **** we've had for three millenia.

Novus Ordo Seclorum, "New Order for the Ages" not "More of the same garbage forever."

Stop being simple.

Your interests involve gasoline for your car and oil based products for you to purchase at Wal-Mart. Those interests demand stability no matter what "****" has to occur from time to time. Accept reality or not. Bitching about it won't change it. Remind yourself of all those dictators we have allowed to rule, all of those weapons we've given countries for their defense (no matter what they do with them after the fact), and all of those other shady deals that occur.....the next time you're at the gas station.

"Liberty and Justice" are words for the idealogues who think their securities are kept safe by gentlemanly acts and blow jobs. :roll: Put your comic books down. Superman is fiction.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

If Plame wasn't covert, there was no crime to investigate, and therefor he would have ended the, so-far,two year investigation the day he learned of her realtionships with the US government as not being classified. Brewster Jennings wasn't a front company either huh?

So, again, why was there 1) a call for an investigation into the identification of an agent with a classified reltionship, and 2) why was there an investigation into the disclore of the identity of an agent with a classified relationship, if there was no classified relationship?

And remember, though the a Grand Jury's term has expired, does NOT MEAN THE INVESTIGATION IS EVEN OVER YET, as had ACTUALLY been pointed out by Fitzsgerald. The Investigation is STILL commencing.

Also, please post a quote and source of Fitzgerald stating the Agent (who I believe he deems "covert" in the Libby indictment) is does not have a classified-reltionship with the US government that qualifies as "covert."

Here are some things to read
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/iv/toc.html
The USC regarding the plame issue

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_pr_28102005.pdf
From the OSP Fitzgerald and "...and subsequently disclosed to reporters the then-classified information concerning the employment of Valarie Wilson by the Central Intelligence Agency"
Fitzgarlad wrote this and affirms, Valarie Wilson did a classified relationship with the US Government. (if you read the USC 50 Ch.15 Law I posted for you, a "classified relationship" with the US goverment is a significant portion of the definition of "covert.")

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf
In Count 1, section one, paragraph f. Fitzgerald re-affirms Varalie Plame was "...employed by the CIA, and her employement Status was Classified."

So, in two official Documents Fitzgerald affirms the classified relationship between Plame and the US government.

and for further, and besital reading 18 USC 793 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=793
for more National Security Information law.

<sniff sniff> I sense I smoked ya

enhh they got Libby on lying about a crime that never existed try try try again, perjury that's it and not the perjury of the president either not even the vice president.

 

[MSgt]

1) I bolded the relevant part. We shook his hand days after he gassed the Kurds, even though we knew what he did.

Relevent? How revealing. You obviously don't want to address the larger issues, because focusing on Iraq permits you your bashing campaign.

What does this have to do with our wishes? Try to be less obtuse. There are plenty of leaders in the world who do things we don't approve of, yet we must do business with. We've shaken the hands of Soviet leaders, communist leaders, and we have recently been shaking hands with the Chinese Government. I guess that means we "back", "support", and "approve" of what they do. I guess never ending war is what you want? Reality is grey. Standing on the side line bitching about what your government does for your interests is pathetic. It's also hypocritical. Think about that next time you are at the gas station.

2) As far as Kuwait goes, we were right to go in because of that. After all, Hussein DID invade and occupy another nation. What Bush Sr. did in not going all the way to baghdad shows how smart he was. In his speech defending his decision to pull back from going all the way, Bush recited intel which showed that we would be bogged down in an occupation that would last for years, which would put our troops unnecessarily in harms way, and most importantly, create a power vacuum which would be filled by Shiite extremists, thus ruining any chance for a counterbalance in the region. Before you slam Bush's father, we are talking about a man who was not only president, but was a former head of the CIA. Bush Sr. knew what he was talking about, had excellent intellect, and used the brains that God gave him. The same cannot be said about the son.

Shows more of your ignorance to terrorism and the Middle East than anything else.

3) You still show your dishonesty by attempting to tie al Qaeda and Iraq together, when that has already been completely refuted.

?!?! I never claimed there were ties between Al-Queda and Iraq. Like so many, you only want to deal with nuclear bombs and individual terrorists as a threat. You continue to show your simpleton brain. Al-Queda is a symptom. Saddam was a symptom. Khomeini was a symptom. Destroying Al-Queda and arresting Bin Ladden will accomplish nothing as long as the civilization that bred it continues to digress. You are aware that Bin Laden and his terror organization isn't the first sign of decay we've seen in the last thirty years? This is worldy knowledge in which books have been written. Do yourself a favor and study what you don't understand before dragging your ignorance around for all to see. We are not at war with Al-Queda. We are not at war with Saddam. We are at war with a civilization. Our fight is with the few, but our struggle must be with the many. Your children's children will be a terrorist target if this civilization continues it's path...and guess what....Iraq is smack in the middle of it.

4) As for bin Laden, we gave him the power to do what he did, and he bit the hand that fed him, just as Hussein did. That is the problem when you take the Machiavellian and Marxist approach to foreign policy, in which the ends justify the means. The means usually come home to roost.

It's a shame that every President and all of their intel communities going back to the 70's didn't have your vast intellect to see into the future. It's a shame that so many of our leaders had so much trouble as they maliciously made bad decisions along the last few decades, because they didn't have your crystall ball to tell them the correct way to handle every situation. :roll:

 

[danarhea]

Relevent? How revealing. You obviously don't want to address the larger issues, because focusing on Iraq permits you your bashing campaign.

What does this have to do with our wishes? Try to be less obtuse. There are plenty of leaders in the world who do things we don't approve of, yet we must do business with. We've shaken the hands of Soviet leaders, communist leaders, and we have recently been shaking hands with the Chinese Government. I guess that means we "back", "support", and "approve" of what they do. I guess never ending war is what you want? Reality is grey. Standing on the side line bitching about what your government does for your interests is pathetic. It's also hypocritical. Think about that next time you are at the gas station.



Shows more of your ignorance to terrorism and the Middle East than anything else.





?!?! I never claimed there were ties between Al-Queda and Iraq. Like so many, you only want to deal with nuclear bombs and individual terrorists as a threat. You continue to show your simpleton brain. Al-Queda is a symptom. Saddam was a symptom. Khomeini was a symptom. Destroying Al-Queda and arresting Bin Ladden will accomplish nothing as long as the civilization that bred it continues to digress. You are aware that Bin Laden and his terror organization isn't the first sign of decay we've seen in the last thirty years? This is worldy knowledge in which books have been written. Do yourself a favor and study what you don't understand before dragging your ignorance around for all to see. We are not at war with Al-Queda. We are not at war with Saddam. We are at war with a civilization. Our fight is with the few, but our struggle must be with the many. Your children's children will be a terrorist target if this civilization continues it's path...and guess what....Iraq is smack in the middle of it.



It's a shame that every President and all of their intel communities going back to the 70's didn't have your vast intellect to see into the future. It's a shame that so many of our leaders had so much trouble as they maliciously made bad decisions along the last few decades, because they didn't have your crystall ball to tell them the correct way to handle every situation. :roll:

I will address your comments (personal attacks) by color:

Green - Just namecalling and did not address the issue in the least.

Orange - Talks around the Q, and tries to justify that we should be friends with those who use chemical weapons on his own population, which is a positon that anyone with an ounce of morals rejects.

Blue - Again, just namecalling and not debate.

Second orange - You claim you never tried to link Iraq and al Qaeda, but the response you made to my last post shows you lied. Shall I refresh your memory? Here, you are putting bin Laden and Hussein in the same section of your post, as if they were working together.

We told him to invade Kuwait? We told him to pay off terrorists? We told Bin Ladden to repay our help against the Soviets by attacking our military for a decade because his government allowed the western world to park their militaries in his "holy land" during the Gulf War? We told him to drop a some planes on our soil? We told Khomeini to brutalize Islam in Iran? We told the leadership of the Middle East to refrain from building world class universities, libraries, wide spread infrastructure, frown upon freedom of the press, subjugate their women, and refrain from building any kind of a future for their youth?

Perhaps we should do absolutely nothing and just let the world go to hell and involve ourselves with world wars which costs 10s of millions of lives as Europe needs us instead.

What will be your reply to this? I bet it might take the following form:

1) Lions eat meat.

2) Roaches eat meat.

3) Some houses in the US are infested with roaches.

4) Therefore, call animal control, because some houses in the US are infested with lions.

Finally, the purple. You dont need a crystal ball to realize that, if you have a policy of doing business with evil people, that some of that evil is going to eventually come back and hit you right between the eyes. Of course, that didnt bother the Soviets, and they eventually paid for it by creating enemies in Chechnya, I am sure it doesnt bother you either, but we are paying for it nonetheless. But of course, as Karl Marx says, if the ends justify the means, just do it, right? WRONG.

Call me whatever you want, but meanwhile, look at the poll numbers. You and your ilk are the ones in the final throes, as the Republcian party begins to throw off its parasitic host, and as Americans reject the sickness which, for a brief time, had its day. However, your day is now finished. Retire now to the garbage heap America is now throwing you back into. God bless America and the American way.

 

[MSgt]

I will address your comments (personal attacks) by color:

Green - Just namecalling and did not address the issue in the least.

Orange - Talks around the Q, and tries to justify that we should be friends with those who use chemical weapons on his own population, which is a positon that anyone with an ounce of morals rejects.

Blue - Again, just namecalling and not debate.

Second orange - You claim you never tried to link Iraq and al Qaeda, but the response you made to my last post shows you lied. Shall I refresh your memory? Here, you are putting bin Laden and Hussein in the same section of your post, as if they were working together.



What will be your reply to this? I bet it might take the following form:



Finally, the purple. You dont need a crystal ball to realize that, if you have a policy of doing business with evil people, that some of that evil is going to eventually come back and hit you right between the eyes. Of course, that didnt bother the Soviets, and they eventually paid for it by creating enemies in Chechnya, I am sure it doesnt bother you either, but we are paying for it nonetheless. But of course, as Karl Marx says, if the ends justify the means, just do it, right? WRONG.

Call me whatever you want, but meanwhile, look at the poll numbers. You and your ilk are the ones in the final throes, as the Republcian party begins to throw off its parasitic host, and as Americans reject the sickness which, for a brief time, had its day. However, your day is now finished. Retire now to the garbage heap America is now throwing you back into. God bless America and the American way.

I say you are ignoring the issues so you say that I'm not addressing the issues? What's the sense in debating with you? If it involves bashing Bush, you are ready to march. If it involves the issues regarding the Middle East you would rather remain obtuse, while bashing Bush. Pathetic. You have a plethora of bash threads to prove this.

So now you have gone from saying that I "tried to link Al-Queda and Saddam" to I "put them in the same post, thereby saying that they worked together?" Who's the liar here? Back peddling is sad. As is your knowledge of the Middle East. To suggest that Saddam had nothing to do with the oppression and decay that the region's civilization has used to create Islamic extremism is sheer ignorance.

What also reveals your agenda from post to post is that you are dead set on focusing on anything negative to fuel your hatred. I declare that America under all administrations have looked the other way when our allies have done things we don't approve of and you choose to only chastice Bush. Not very intelligent while attempting to "debate." Whining about the things our Government has done with regards to Saddam, while ignoring what it has done for generations for American interests is called grandstanding. It's selective bashing. More of why "debating" with you is senseless. I wonder if you even know our crime behind Islamic extremism in the Middle East? Probably nothing. Since you predicted, I'll predict....you probably think "foreign policy" and think you have it figured out. Ignorance of this is why you can;t understand why things like Iraq have to happen.

Polls show the ignorance and feeble mindendness of the American public. The polls during the 90's showed that America approved very much on how the country was being run. Never mind that in the mean time, the military was being attacked all over the place without retaliation. Here we are today and so many have gone from "kill for us" to "you poor military men are being used, we change our mind." No amount of grandstanding will change this civilization from wanting you dead and no amount of appeasment will keep them from creating more terrorist organizations in the furture. Iraq won't be the end. Sooner or later, the garbage will have to go back and deal with Syria, Iran, and Saudi. The sickness is what has allowed Americans to remain ignorant to what this "War on Terror" really means. Until you and your "ilk" decide to pull your head from your asses (whether you do it your self or an extremists does it for you), you will remain in the way. "God bless America and the American way."