I’m not following the post-debate news because frankly, I don’t care. But I’ll assume the role of clearinghouse to keep those who’re interested in the latest developments informed. Bloggers, the big boys and others, are covering post-debate polls and dissecting Kerry’s debate faux pas.
(Some of these aren’t directly related to Kerry, but who cares?)
JustOneMinute is up-to-the minute on this stuff. Mystery Pollster discusses the incumbent rule. Power Line links to a Dan Rather blog parody. Jason Smith at Blogs for Bush asks: “Did the world like the U.S. before Bush?” I say, Who cares? Alphecca on the media’s gun bias. Carnival of the Capitalists? There’s something for everybody in the blogosphere!
The electoral map might be of interest to the naysayers.
Update: Blogs for Bush is doing some interesting blogging today. Go take a look. Vodkapundit has the goods on trash-talking Kerry.
So much for Kerry’s debate bounce. Captain’s Quarters blogs on this. Power Line has more polling good news. Did people really believe Kerry was leading? But for Jim Lehrer’s biased questions, perhaps Bush would’ve had a chance to talk about the economic boom. Maybe next time. In the meantime, AlphaPatriot blogs about it.
How many thought the Instapundit was a conservative? Joe asks a great follow-up question. Big brother Dean interviews Swift Boat veteran Van Odell.
Update II (10/5): More from JustOneMinute on Kerry’s global test.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 67 comments }
LaShawn, I echo your sentiments “who cares”… but it’s relevant in this day and age of media spin to offset the spin to the Left with facts. It’s more of education than information from my perspective.
I know. I guess I’m just sick of it. I’ll get over the malaise in a few days.
Oh my! JustOneMinute mentioned in his blog that Wesley Clark could become Secty. of Defense in a Kerry admin. That would be horrible. There goes our nation’s security and our military. Let me quote my older brother who is a Captain in the USAF, “The military DESPISES Wesley Clark. He will say one thing to one person,then something completely different to someone else just to get ahead.” Clark and Kerry are definitely NOT two people we need in command of our armed forces.
justoneminute says “John Kerry explained that the US always has the right to act alone, as long as the world approves first.”
That is completely false. Here is what Kerry said:
“No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.”
So the test is 1) do the American people know why we are taking this action, 2) can you justify it to the world after you have done so.
It is simply not asking for permission beforehand. And if someblogger says it, that is fine. But when Bush says this (as he has), it is our President being dishonest with us. So maybe you should care about that.
Here is one member of the Global Community I never want to be able to veto US policies…
story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=857&ncid=757&e=10&u=/nm/20041004/od_uk_nm/oukoe_sweden_tax_men
LB, do you or any of your readers know of any reputable sites (besides factcheck.org) that are doing the same thing for Bush’s mis-statements? (I’m confident that he had some, but I’ve actually been working for a change, and therefore am not as able to spend all my time browsing for this info).
I want to share the info from this post, but as soon as I do, someone’s gonna ask me for the same info from the other side, so I thought I’d be proactive and ask now.
“can you justify it to the world after you have done so”
Rollins, first of all, I don’t believe that’s what he meant, and I haven’t seen anything to support that he was talking about a post-war blessing rather than a pre-war blessing. After all, he keeps talking about getting other countries to share the burden. How are they supposed to do that if the burden’s over?
Second, if he really is saying our basis for going to war should be how the Monday-morning quarterbacks of the world will judge military action after it’s taken, then that’s even worse than asking for a permission slip. That’s going to depend on too many factors out of our control (like media coverage), and will make us only want to take on the easy cases and avoid challenges. Relative ease or difficulty is important, but should not always be decisive. Not to mention that the Iraq situation isn’t over yet, so at what point in a conflict do we take the temperature of the international community to judge our own legitimacy?
Denise – the line is “and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.” The operative word being ‘did’ as in past tense.
And you should be able to show the rest of the world that you had a legitimate reason for it, that it was not just an arbitrary act. We don’t condone other nations taking military action against other nations without just cause. Just because we are the most powerful nation on earth, does not mean we disregard international norms.
“I haven’t seen anything to support that he was talking about a post-war blessing rather than a pre-war blessing.”
how about the part where he said no one would veto what american did?
So what Rollins is saying is that Kerry wants to govern in hindsight. “As long as it’s later proved to be the right action, I’ll act”. How exactly can Kerry determine ahead of time whether he’ll be able to justify his actions? This is simple the monday morning quarterback response. To see the idiocy of this position, let’s remember that we were dealing with intelligence about a dictator who had 1)previously used WMDs on innocent citizens, 2) was continually ignoring UN resolutions (16 to be exact) 3)continuously engaging in acts of war against US and British planes patrolling the no-fly zone 4)had started wars with two neighbors 5)had plotted to assassinate an American President 6)harbored folks like Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, al-Zarkawi 7)cheated the oil-for-food program 8)promoted an anti-American sentiment 9)controlled much of the world’s oil and 10)was committed to building a nuclear weapon
and all of this was in the shadow of 9/11.
All this second-guessing is ridiculous because it’s not acknowledging the context under which the decisions were made.
If you want to see what would’ve happened had we relied on ‘containment’ and hoped the dictator wouldn’t lie to us and build nukes anyway…. take a look at North Korea.
I think North Korea provides the best example of “what would’ve happened in Iraq” if we hadn’t gone in. Now we’re dealing with a nuclear armed dictator… something Bush guaranteed wouldn’t happen in Iraq by taking action.
Unless Kerry plans on hiring Nostradamus as his security advisor, he’ll be plagued by the same decision-making issues with incomplete intelligence under intense pressure and allies who stab us in the back to cover their own illegal dealings and billion dollar contracts, and he’ll have to make decisions without the benefit of hindsight….
Let’s make sure we don’t have to put him through that kind of stressful job! For his own sake!
“So what Rollins is saying is that Kerry wants to govern in hindsight.”
Lots of people argue/act along the lines of ‘you’ll see that I am right.’ Thats not hindsight. But one does have to be sure that they’ll be right.
No Foolin! Like we need a permission slip from France? To defend ourselves? I dont think so.
mariestwocents.blogspot.com/
sKerry is simply not up to leading. He’s a great follower of prevailing opinions. Polls are simply a snapshot of what Americans and/or the world thinks at a given point in time. You can’t lead by following.
First he was for the war, but now that it is “not going” well, he’s against it. Fool, please. He couldn’t even lead in the senate when others have come, seen and left an indeliglbe mark, all the while he plays hooky.
Clinton provided plenty of case studies for the perils of indecisively holding a wet finger to the wind all the time, hence the quagmire we’re in now due.
If we hadn’t
–turned a blind eye to broken sanctions,
–cut and run in Somalia,
–waffled with Bosnia/Kosovo/Albania,
–vigorously pursued the ‘93 WTC attack,
–afriad to call a suicidal Egyptian Air pilot a jihaii murderer,
–overreacted at Waco/Ruby Ridge,
–overly anxious to return a “kidnapped” boy back to Castro, and
–move on’d over lewd oval office shenanigans,
9/11 as we remember it would not have happened.
No wonder Osama thot we were a bunch of selfish, narcisstic sissies petrified of our own shadows and infatuated with self-importance. If Osama thot we were a vigilant giant not to be trifled with, he would have contented himself with building nurseries, hospitals and roads.
Jason,
That is not what I am saying. If you can’t address my argument without changing it, we can’t have real debate.
Take this example, it is simple, maybe you can follow along. Cop of the street, sees a person and shoots him. He is allowed to do this if the person was about to harm another – that is a legitimate reason. He cannot shoot him just because of his race, nationality or whatever – that would not be a legitimate reason. Preventing harm to others – legitimate. Acting on blind hatred – not legitimate.
I can see clearly now, the rain has gone.
Chris Matthews to Joe Lockhart…”I want to get one thing straight, if I can from you, Joe. Is the Kerry position we went to war with Iraq the wrong way at the wrong time, or is it the Kerry position we should not have gone to war with Iraq.”
Lockhart…” I think it’s the Kerry position that knowing what we know now…then we shouldn’t have gone to war under those circumstances. Very simple.”
Kerry does have vision, but it is all hindsight.
The fault in Rollins’ argument is that the actions of said “cop” would then be “judged” not by the witnesses on the street, nor by those endangered.
Come on, Jason. What do you not understand?
Chris Matthews to Joe Lockhart: “I want to get one thing straight, if I can from you, Joe. Is it the Kerry position we went to war with Iraq the wrong way at the wrong time, or is it the Kerry position we should not have gone to war with Iraq?”
Lockhart: “I think it’s the Kerry position that knowing what we know now… then we shouldn’t have gone to war under those circumstances. Very Simple.”
Kerry does have a vision, but it is all hindsight.
Rollins,
You’re making two assumptions. First, you and you alone know what he “really meant”, and second, he has no previous mention of that ideology which would contradict that statement. You can twist it, turn it, play it backwards if it floats your boat. The truth is, waffle, via current talking points, his past and his pacifist beliefs contradicts everything you want to believe. Even taking a consensus for where to buy his jock straps for Christ sakes?
The “global test” meme could be argued by you true belivers forever but it would never negate his underlying principles. John Kerry is a man of great wealth, born of an Ambassador that hated the United States, and schooled abroad in schools only for the rich. He has always “seen it from abroad” so to speak, so his rationale for global inclusion is second nature.
How does that help us today? If whoever is in the Whitehouse, is given overwhelming evidence that a rogue regime is capable, now, of first strike capability and has a history of doing so, a striking difference is apparent. Historically so from John Kerry’s own mouth.
Bush tried a consensus and failed. He went ahead and did what he believed was necessary to protect even liberals who don’t believe they need protecting. Mr. Kerry would have, based on everything he said before the GT remark, done nothing. As I’ve stated on other blogs, liberals have faith in John Kerry. I have faith in God, the Bible and his son Jesus Christ. All others, including President Bush are fact checked.
John exhibits all the signs of a poor leader. He finds it difficult to make decisions, even about his positions on the issues in this campaign.
The ‘Global Test’ comment was only a Faux Pas to the degree
it is a clue to his need for approval before making decisions, and this is a trait he would prefer not to expose.
If you read John’s statement, included in Rollins post, you see the classic equivocation of a follower:
“No president……has ever ceded, nor would I. But….in a way….you can prove to the world..”
Of course you cannot prove to everyone you are right. A leader listens to all the information, makes a decision,
and moves on. They are rarely verbose and rarely use the ‘but’ bailout.
John exudes difficulty in taking a stand, making a decision, and speaking concisely without feeling the need to ‘but’ elaborate(so you can share the fault in case he is wrong). Classic follower behavior, observe him.
I agree that Kerry acts like a follower. He’s GT remark notwithstanding, he acts like a puppet;like someone is propping him up; a boxer who needs to go for one more round.
I know there would be no debate about Iraq if Iraq was ok and Iraqis waved to us with palm leaves when we came in.
ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK!!!!!!!!
Do not let your opponents up for air. Put them on the defensive early and do not let up. It is well past time for Kerry to FINALLY account for his 20 years in the Senate. It is well past time for them to answer some tough questions. You owe it to yourselves and to America to put these two little whiny boyz on the carpet to account for their anti-American ways, troop endangering rhetoric, and examples of poor to no leadership.
Take a picture of the Old Ball Coach out there with you on the campaign trail and when you get tired pull it out and remember his philosophy on winning. When asked by a reporter if he was going to do anything to shore up his defense, Steven Orr Spurrier replied matter of factly and with the straightest of faces, “I always thought it was the team who scored the most points who won.”
And if you don’t like the Steve Spurrier analogy, then think Gen. George S. Patton, but by all means, bury these dudes. THINK OFFENSE.
Play time is over. @#$% the “new tone.” It is time for you great men to fight like the champions you are. Time to “draw blood.” No more @#$$& footing around with Edwards and Kerry. Show the nation how true warriors respond when knocked down. Forget about that substance vs. style crap. Be yourselves. America, as evidenced by the polls show that President Bush really won the last debate no matter what lefties like Newsweek say. Be mean. Don’t be political. BE MEN! The so-called “swing voter” is a dadgum idiot and know one knows how these morons are going to vote, but telling the truth and putting for the facts is unlikely to hurt you as the lies told by Kerry and Edwards are hurting them. Don’t worry about appeasing that garbage called the undecided voter.
I AM WITH YOU ALL THE WAY and so are many other Americans. Strap it on Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush and go out there and KICK SOME BOO-TAY!!!!
Raymond Coleman
Tampa, FL
Hmmmm……Ann Coulter mark 2?
Raymond and Omar,
Inciteful as ever
Thanks SCUZZYWUZZY!
Rollins said Take this example, it is simple, maybe you can follow along. Cop of the street, sees a person and shoots him. He is allowed to do this if the person was about to harm another – that is a legitimate reason. He cannot shoot him just because of his race, nationality or whatever – that would not be a legitimate reason. Preventing harm to others – legitimate. Acting on blind hatred – not legitimate.
So let’s go back to that street. The cop sees the guy, knows he has shot cops in the past, has been ordered by another cop positioned behind the mailbox with his gun drawn to “drop his weapon”. Now the man’s friends and relatives, and a few ‘crack clients’ of his are yelling at you that he doesn’t have a gun. What do you do? Do you stand in the street for eternity and hope he gives up peacefully, knowing he’s just waiting for the cops to get out of position so he may run or attack? Or do you forcefully take him down? What if he reaches inside his jacket as you’re approaching?
Can you be absolutely sure the other cop isn’t acting maliciously? Can you be absolutely sure the man isn’t armed this time? Can you believe the word of the man’s ‘friends’?
There are no absolutes. So you have to act with the understanding of the situation as you know it… combining past actions and knowledge with the current environment.
Now we can all sit around debating over donuts who was right and who was wrong… but it doesn’t change the situation as it was that night when you had to make the split second judgments.
SHOTS FIRED INTO BUSH-CHENEY HEADQUARTERS!!!!!
And that softie boy John Edwards has the nerve to call GOP voters crazy? Is it any coincidence that all of the presidential and political violence in this nation’s history has been committed by looney left wingers and mostly aimed at REPUBLICANS?
Cases in point:
-Ku Klux Klan: Formed by members of the Democrat party (Nathan Bedford Forest). Long history of lynchings and violence against blacks
-Poll intimidation and threats of violence if illegally registered Haitians do not vote for Clinton and then Gore: Democrats
-President James A Garfield (R): Shot by a disgruntled attorney seeking a consular post
-President Kennedy (D): Shot by left wing communist sympathizing Lee Harvey Oswald
-Attempt on President Ford’s life by Democrat Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, in Sacramento, California. September 5, 1975.
-Gun fired by Democrat Sara Jane Moore during assassination attempt on -President Gerald Ford in San Francisco, California. September 22, 1975.
-President Reagan (R): Shot by registered looney Democrat Hinkley
-Gainesville, FL: GOP election chief attacked and punched by Democrat lunatic
And yet they STILL vote Democrat. Go figure.
Ray Coleman
Tampa, FL
Ok, so make up your mind…..are Liberals pro gun control, wussy ‘girly men,’ or psychopathic gun nuts? There was a shooting at the Bush HQ! It HAS to be a Kerry supporter!
‘-Ku Klux Klan: Formed by members of the Democrat party (Nathan Bedford Forest). Long history of lynchings and violence against blacks ‘
Suggesting the KKK is left wing?! Ok, am i the only one who sees a problem with this?
‘-President James A Garfield ®: Shot by a disgruntled attorney seeking a consular post ‘
Whats this got to do with liberals/lefties? In fact, the same can be said of pretty much everything you’ve put.
‘-President Kennedy (D): Shot by left wing communist sympathizing Lee Harvey Oswald’
Supposedly.
Key lesson here – Democrats dont equal ‘liberals’ or ‘lefties.’ Kind of like Republicans dont always equal ‘Conservative’ or ‘hawks.’
Wait a minute, Omar. Are you saying democrats aren’t racist Klan members? Or communists? Come ON! You’re challenging my world view here. Have some decency, man!
/runs away waving arms in frustration/
On a more serious note, when I read comments on blogs, I am consistently amazed by the vehement hatred, the dismissal of glaring facts, and the complete irrational nature of posts (that means you, Rollins and Actus) by liberals…er, sorry Omar, I mean Democrats…I mean supporters of Kerry – oh whatever. It’s consistent EVERYWHERE and it never ceases to amaze me.
Even people who are my “friends” – when I try to ask them something or discuss something political, they can’t answer my questions. They simply start screaming one of three things (no matter what the discussion topic, mind you): 1. HALLIBURTON!! 2. BUSH LIED!!! 3. NO WMDs!!
Amazing.
You’d think by now they’d find something original…
All of the above!!
Democrat = leftie, communist, socialist, left wing, liberal, America hating, racist elite, poverty inducing, minority exploiting, overtaxing, military hating, globalist, mentally deranged, guilt ridden, lunatic fringe, lazy, begging, wealth redistributing, God hating, French loving, cowardly, confederate flag raising and waving, bunch of dope smoking and legalizing brain fried hippies!!!
Wooooooooo. That felt sooo good. Talk about therapy from the written word. LOL!!
Oh, how could I forget “unborn child murdering….” There.
‘Wait a minute, Omar. Are you saying democrats aren’t racist Klan members? Or communists? Come ON! You’re challenging my world view here. Have some decency, man!’
He compared modern day Democrats to the Klan, which im sure any sane person would know is absurd. The Klan is right wing, or have Conservatives found some way to call them liberals now?
‘On a more serious note, when I read comments on blogs, I am consistently amazed by the vehement hatred, the dismissal of glaring facts, and the complete irrational nature of posts’
Perfect description of Raymond, or more descriptively…. Ann Coulter mark 2.
‘Democrat = leftie, communist, socialist, left wing, liberal, America hating, racist elite, poverty inducing, minority exploiting, overtaxing, military hating, globalist, mentally deranged, guilt ridden, lunatic fringe, lazy, begging, wealth redistributing, God hating, French loving, cowardly, confederate flag raising and waving, bunch of dope smoking and legalizing brain fried hippies!!!’
I rest my case. *smug*
Raymond, Your scaring me.
Jason:
So let’s go back to that street. The cop sees the guy, knows he has shot cops in the past, has been ordered by another cop positioned behind the mailbox with his gun drawn to “drop his weapon”. Now the man’s friends and relatives, and a few ‘crack clients’ of his are yelling at you that he doesn’t have a gun. What do you do? Do you stand in the street for eternity and hope he gives up peacefully, knowing he’s just waiting for the cops to get out of position so he may run or attack? Or do you forcefully take him down? What if he reaches inside his jacket as you’re approaching?
Cute, but not a good description of pre-war Iraq. Try this one: Cop orders man to drop his gun. Man claims he doesn’t have a gun. Other cops who’ve been watching the man for some time, along with negotiators who’ve been inside talking to him — not his “friends and relatives and a few ‘crack clients’ — say he doesn’t seem to have a gun. Cop shoots at group of women and children standing in front of man, killing several, and destroying several houses, then takes man into custody. Man is searched, and lo and behold, he has no gun.
Anyway, Bush’s defenders seem to equate “going it alone” with “exercising strong, consistent, moral leadership.” Well, if the officials and general population of virtually every other nation in the world is stupid, evil, or both, then sure, I’d say go it alone. Maybe the tuba player in that marching band really is following the correct routine, while the other 99 band members are out of step. But it makes you wonder, doesn’t it? I haven no idea what Kerry really meant by the remarks we’re discussing, but saying that you’d hestitate to act without approval of peers doesn’t strike me as the least bit wishy-washy or wimpy. It doesn’t mean you’d never, ever, act without support from the larger group. It simply means that if nobody else feels the way you do, you’d better be damn sure you’re right and they’re all wrong.
Peter, your analogy would be laughed as out of hand by FDR, and for that matter Woodrow Wilson.
FDR decided to take on Germany via N Africa, before retailiating against Japan. This in spite of popular opinion/conventional widom from the public and politicos that clamored for retailiating against Japan ASAP during the 2 weeks or so it took for him to make that decision. He then had to make the case for putting Japan on hold to Americans who did not consider the Nazis to be an imminent threat to US.
This is why POTUS is CinC, instead of the debative & consensus-seeking legislative branch. You should check out belmontclub.blogspot.com if you want to discuss strategy from a historical/political perspective.
Peter, what if those “negotiators” who’ve been with him and vouch for him turn out to have business dealings (even illegal) with him later? What if there’s talk that the weapons were moved out the back door while the negotiators were securing their own personal dealings knowing a raid was imminent?
They shooting women and children part of your claim is nonsense. It would be more relevant to say those women and children were hit by stray bullets fired by the man’s friends who were using them as shields while trying to escape.
Unless you’re one of these moral relativists that truly believes our brave soldiers intentionally open fire on unarmed, innocent civilians….
of course after that testimony in 1971, I can see how you might believe something like that…
raymond, omar,
Another theory: when lefties get ahold of guns without proper supervision, they do nutty things (like shoot at campaign headquarters). Lefties are the sane, rational members of society, the yardstick against which we measure correct behaivor. Therefore, when, rational people get guns, they go insane. Ergo, we must get rid of guns, to keep people sane.
Righties, as Sen. Edwards tells us, are already insane, and therefore should not have guns. Since sane people go insane with guns, and the guns should be kept away from the insane, nobody should have guns.
Wow. The lefty gun policy finally makes sense to me.
Andy, thanks for reminding us about those two great conservative Republican heroes, Wilson and FDR.
(Whoops, they were liberal Democrats, universally hated by the conservatives of their day. Who says neoconservatives are are simply liberal hawks!)
“What if those “negotiators” who’ve been with him and vouch for him turn out to have business dealings (even illegal) with him later?” This is silly. You believe the primary motive of those who opposed the US invasion as unjustified and unnecessary — like, say, the Pope — was personal financial gain? And the US has no financial motives in estalishing military bases in the world’s second most oil-rich nation? Oh, I forgot, pointing that out would be conspiracy-mongering. Talk about your double standard!
As for the dead civilians, I suppose you believe the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians were all killed by Saddam Hussein and the insurgent forces. That’s interesting. Even Don Rumsfeld admits that thousands were killed by stray US bombs and bullets. I recently read an account quoting an Iraqi woman as saying something like this: “The insurgents fire at US troops, and US troops fire back into the crowds, killing innocent bystanders, but not the insurgents.” The Iraqi people hated Saddam, and now they hate us even more.
“What if those “negotiators” who’ve been with him and vouch for him turn out to have business dealings (even illegal) with him later?” This is silly. You believe the primary motive of those who opposed the US invasion as unjustified and unnecessary — like, say, the Pope — was personal financial gain? And the US has no financial motives in estalishing military bases in the world’s second most oil-rich nation? Oh, I forgot, pointing that out would be conspiracy-mongering. Talk about your double standard!
As for the dead civilians, I suppose you believe the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians were all killed by Saddam Hussein and the insurgent forces. That’s interesting. Even Don Rumsfeld admits that thousands were killed by stray US bombs and bullets. I recently read an account quoting an Iraqi woman as saying something like this: “The insurgents fire at US troops, and US troops fire back into the crowds, killing innocent bystanders, but not the insurgents.” The Iraqi people hated Saddam, and now they hate us even more.
Peter, what’s your point?
If anything, my point was that in times past, opponents resisted airing dissent in a time of war, hence the old saw about our disagreements stopping at the water’s edge, ie the Atlantic/Pacific, lest our enemies take comfort.
In fact, FDR passed up his own october surprise at the expense of losing a few Dem seats… Read up on the hows & whys, and what Albert Einstein had to do with the Europe First, Japan Later strategy at llamabutchers.mu.nu/archives/2004_10.php#048279
OTOH Kerwards will do ANYTHING to win, even at the cost of their vaunted nuances and so called aces up their sleeves. Will anyone join up in their grand coalition? Not likely, why would foreign-leaders-who-support-sKerry want to sign up for a dismal failure? Why would Iraq even cooperate, since they’re only puppets of a past administration & does that mean Kerwards will want a regime change to install new puppets? Simply put, the more they open their mouths, the more everyone gets alienated.
It wouldn’t surprise me that should they win in Nov, that they don’t end up fighting for their political lives within months from a “recall” drive as a result of inept bloviating. It’s come to the point that it’s easier to count the members of the as yet unalienated coalition as opposed to counting unalienated supporters, starting with Iran, nKorea and Spain.
“Other cops who’ve been watching the man for some time, along with negotiators who’ve been inside talking to him – not his “friends and relatives and a few “crack clients” – say he doesn’t seem to have a gun.”
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php
Here’s the real question: Is keeping Germany and France as allies in our best interests? I would argue definitely not. France has for a long time positioned itself as the anti-America, dating back to before the Reagan administration (ex. our strike on Libya). They have consistently made deals with Saddam under the table, and are chief conspirators in the Oil-for-Food scandal. Germany has done nothing but leech of the United States for its military defense since the Marshall Plan. They too are complicit in dealing with Iraq. They too position themselves as an anti-American power. Their judicial system has released Al Qaida operatives without concluding a trial. Why are we discussing rekindling relationships with these countries? They have no interest in items that directly affect our security, and they are not representative of our interests. Dealing with these two is a clear waste of time.
Finally, allies do not have be the same countries. Throughout history, we have changed allies to best suit our interests. Remember, even the Soviet Union was an ally of ours (we armed a majority of their army until their industrial complex regained its footing) during World War II. This talk about rebuilding alliances is nonsense. It is from a party who subscribes to a European point of view, whose leadership believes that Europe is the better example for us to follow in how to live our lives. That is in no way in the best interests of the American people.
‘Another theory: when lefties get ahold of guns without proper supervision, they do nutty things (like shoot at campaign headquarters).’
And righties never partake in shootings, right?
‘Wow. The lefty gun policy finally makes sense to me.’
Yeah, you really grasp the argument well…….
‘Here’s the real question: Is keeping Germany and France as allies in our best interests?’
Yes, considering they are major economic and political players. If you were in charge of the Administration, the US would have even less ‘allies.’
‘They have consistently made deals with Saddam under the table,’
Lmao. TOTALLY unlike Reagan then…..
‘Germany has done nothing but leech of the United States for its military defense since the Marshall Plan. ‘
The US willingly funded Germany’s military throughout the cold war, for obvious reasons. You cant blame Germany for reaping the benefits of a US proposed plan.
‘It is from a party who subscribes to a European point of view, whose leadership believes that Europe is the better example for us to follow in how to live our lives. ‘
When did the Kerry/Edwards ticket even suggest this?
‘That is in no way in the best interests of the American people.’
How is the war in Iraq in the best interests of the American people, may i ask? Its in the best interests of American contractors maybe.
Omar, you know nothing about me, so don’t make the assumption that my Presidential administration would have no allies. Keep your arguments on point please.
Second, the Reagan admin. was not arming and dealing with Saddam in violation of U.N. resolutions. Nor were they skimming the Oil-for-Food program. He also was seen as leverage against the mullahs in Iran. Bad decision, sure. However the era in which we were operating made sense for us to deal with Saddam and not Iran. Still, you never addressed what the French and Germans are doing as wrong. So their policies are okay?
France and Germany being economic and political players doesn’t make a good enough reason to continue as their allies. Do you find China as an ally?
Finally, John Kerry has elaborated at length about making sure U.S. foreign policies did not offend European leaders. He also made the gaffe of stating that U.S. policy must pass the “global test.” Spin that however you want, but I’ll never vote for any Presidential candidate that speaks of our policies falling under a “global test.”
If foreign leaders opinions do not fit our best interests, we are not obligated to deal with them. Why should we appease them? France and Germany have consistently sought to undermine U.S. policy since Reagan came into office. Do we really need them as allies? How are they going to benefit us and our interests in the future? Those are the questions that are not being asked.
I view with skepticism any nation that proudly claims it is the balance to American policy. That puts them in direct conflict with the best interests of this nation.
‘Second, the Reagan admin. was not arming and dealing with Saddam in violation of U.N. resolutions.’
Yes they were. Reagan dealt with Saddam prior to the Iran-Iraq war breaking out. He ALSO dealt with Saddam even before Iraq was officially removed from the ‘terrorist nations’ list, solely for political reasons. What conclusion do you draw? Did Saddam temporarily stop supporting terrorists, or did Reagan remove Iraq from the list to advance military aid? I’ll let you figure out that one.
‘He also was seen as leverage against the mullahs in Iran.’
In other words, Saddam was still evil, but it was perfectly ok to support his military in order to play him off against another evil dictator. The key difference between Iraq and Iran was – Iran was anti US interests, Iraq was pro US interests.
‘Still, you never addressed what the French and Germans are doing as wrong. So their policies are okay? ‘
Not at all, but you just slammed them for dealing with Saddam ‘under the table,’ when the US did EXACTLY the same thing.
‘France and Germany being economic and political players doesn’t make a good enough reason to continue as their allies. Do you find China as an ally? ‘
Increasingly, the new Capitalist swinging China, allowing foreign companies to exploit its pool of cheap labour, is slowly becoming a US ally. It has done since Mao’s death, with small blips of course…(Tianamen square and the shooting down of the US spy plane being a couple)
‘Finally, John Kerry has elaborated at length about making sure U.S. foreign policies did not offend European leaders. ‘
Provide a quote backing up this assumption, please. He never suggested this either. When American Conservatives see the terms ‘Global community’ or ‘United nations’ they have a panic attack. Kerry never once said what you are saying.
‘He also made the gaffe of stating that U.S. policy must pass the “global test.”’
This has already been gone over by other people. Kerry said he will act by US national security and interests, but he said he would explain any military action, as every nation in the world should be required to do. The US quite rightly expects other nations to explain their military actions, especially if they are shrouded in controversy.
‘If foreign leaders opinions do not fit our best interests, we are not obligated to deal with them.’
May i ask, do you consider yourself to be an isolationist?
‘France and Germany have consistently sought to undermine U.S. policy since Reagan came into office.’
Just like the US is consistently undermind UN policy. Heard of a thing called the UN charter? The US voluntarily signed up for it, under our friend Harry Truman. Its ok for the US to flaunt UN policy, but not other countries? The US went to war partly on the basis that Iraq was ignoring UN resolutions. Ironic, no?
“And righties never partake in shootings, right?”
No we just throw the book at ‘em for the crime and move on. Nothing to do with banning guns.
“Yes, considering they are major economic and political players. If you were in charge of the Administration, the US would have even less ‘allies.’”
They will be a has been economic and political player if France and Germany continue to have their way. The only way that will turn around is if the New Europe countries can turn the tax & spend mindset around. The real up and coming economic/political players are China (8.8%) & India (7.9%, 2002 #s, only because I haven’t found 3rd qtr 2004 #s ), at their current growth rate, they will soon surpass the US (3.5% 2004)& EU (2.2%, 2004)
“‘They have consistently made deals with Saddam under the table,’
Lmao. TOTALLY unlike Reagan then…..”
Iraq didn’t come under sanctions till after RWR left the house.
“The US willingly funded Germany’s military throughout the cold war, for obvious reasons. You cant blame Germany for reaping the benefits of a US proposed plan.”
Since Kohl left the house, Germany has done nothing but leech with Madeline DimLight’s full assistance and cooperation.
“When did the Kerry/Edwards ticket even suggest this?”
Everytime they talk about Bush’s coalition as lacking without Germany & France. Russia used to be part of their equation till Beslan. Or did you think they were referring to the approval of Armenia, South Africa and Venezuela as part of our global test? All the “reforms” that they promote is modelled on Fra/Ger/EU policies.
“How is the war in Iraq in the best interests of the American people, may i ask? Its in the best interests of American contractors maybe.”
Exterminating pests is always in our best interest — even better if we make money at it /sarcasm. Or did you expect Orkin to shun profit for eliminating the roaches and tse-tse flies in your crib? Competition for profit is the incentive for contractors to come up with the latest and greatest in technology, otherwise, you’d have to settle for whatever is on the commercial shelf. Before you say gotch with regards to Halliburton, go factcheck the sKerry BS. Besides, contractors have been part of the US military history going all the way back to the revolution war.
The point I make about French and German policies is that they violated U.N. policy. I never condoned U.S. policy. In fact, I said it was a bad decision. I only provided the justifications given by the politicians.
Side note-Sometimes we are faced with having to choose between the lesser of two evils because it is in our best interests. That is the nature of foreign policy.
The United States is not undermining UN policy. 17 resolutions were passed in reference to Saddam, including the use of force. Bill Clinton augmented U.S. policy to include the removal of Saddam by force. Those points are always conveniently overlooked.
Is the UN even relevant any more? They condone terrorist acts against Israel and genocide in Rwanda, yet they are to be considered influential when it comes to our foreign policy. How can we take seriously a body that appoints Libya as the chair of its Human Rights commision?
I don’t panic at all when I see the words ‘global community’ or ‘United Nations.’ We are a part of the global community. We trade with many nations, engage in diplomacy world-wide, so that rhetoric is misguided. I defnititely don’t panic about the words ‘United Nations,’ since that body makes a mockery of itself with its corruption and self-interest.
China is in no way our ally. Trading partner, yes. Useful in negotiations with N. Korea, absolutely. But not an ally in any means. They sell technology to nations that are diometrically opposed to our very existence. They provided N.Korea with the expertise to build their nuke and military programs.
I am not an isolationist. Enough of personal characterizations.
I’ll definitely get the Kerry quotes for you.
Too many in this country are worried about the sensibilities of other countries, especially those who have sought to undermine us for decades. Regardless of American policies, France and Germany have positioned themselves to be the anti-America. It will not matter how much we try to make good with them, change administrations, beg, plead, negotiate, offer incentives. They will support us only when convenient to them. Fighting terrorism is not a matter of convenience. Policies can change, and often do over time. Allies change too. I am not in favor of going it alone, but there is no rule saying we always have to act with partners.
I would rather err on the side of American interests than be wrong trying to make friends in Europe.
I think Andy illustrates well my point about Kerry/Edwards.
‘Iraq didn’t come under sanctions till after RWR left the house. ‘
Yes, but it was classed as a terrorist nation under the Reagan administration, until it was officially removed from the list. Cheney had dealings with Iraq after the sanctions.
‘Or did you think they were referring to the approval of Armenia, South Africa and Venezuela as part of our global test?’
Perhaps the UN, comprising of nearly 200 member nations? But its all a scam really – ’sKerry’ just wants the support of France and Germany.
‘Exterminating pests is always in our best interest ‘
Backing them up has been in your best interests in the past. It was in Saddam’s case during the 1980’s. What is your definition of ‘pest?’
‘Besides, contractors have been part of the US military history going all the way back to the revolution war. ‘
You still failed to explain how the war is in the best interests of the American PEOPLE, not the big wigs who were rubbing their hands together gleefully before the invasion even happened.
‘The United States is not undermining UN policy.’
Hanz Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector disagrees. So does Kofi Annan. Its there in black white to be honest. The invasion IS undermining the UN.
‘Is the UN even relevant any more? They condone terrorist acts against Israel and genocide in Rwanda, yet they are to be considered influential when it comes to our foreign policy.’
No offense, but you claim a lot of things that are totally unfactual. The UN didnt condone either of these things. They condemn both Palestinian terrorist acts, AND Israeli terrorist acts.
‘China is in no way our ally.’
I said increasingly. US relations have consistently improved with China since Mao’s death. This is undenialble.
‘I am not an isolationist. Enough of personal characterizations.’
It was actually a question, but never mind. You come across as one, virtually preaching that any nation that does not support US interests should be ignored, and not considered a US ally. This, in itself is ridiculous.
‘Too many in this country are worried about the sensibilities of other countries, especially those who have sought to undermine us for decades.’
Care to explain this? Not only is the USA partly a product of French intervention, the US and France have traditionally been quite friendly. The US and Germany, post WW2 have been even closer. The trend of irrational dismissal of these countries is pretty recent, mostly due to their disapproval of the Iraq war. So what? It went ahead anyway. They didnt stop you, they condemned the act, which any country is entitled to do.
‘It will not matter how much we try to make good with them, change administrations, beg, plead, negotiate, offer incentives. They will support us only when convenient to them.’
You have the audacity to say this after preaching about US interests being number 1 priority? Why arnt French and German interests allowed to be their number 1 priority? What you are saying is false anyway. France opposses the invasion of Iraq, along with many other countries and American conservatives go up in arms. Its so irrational its almost unbelievable.
‘Fighting terrorism is not a matter of convenience.’
The point is, Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, the perpetrators of 9/11. Invading Iraq was NOT the way to fight terrorism. Dont you find it ironic that the so called ‘war on terror’ has not only attracted foreign Al Qaeda fighters to Iraq, but it has generally increased the threat of terrorism worldwide? Im not sure if you are aware, but France and Germany supported the invasion of Afghanistan. What you are saying is misleading.
Shoo tse-tse fly, don’t bother me… /shrugs and walks away/
Jim R…GOOD!!!! And Ann Coulter is a hero of mine. Thanks to those comparing my THINKING to hers.
Sorry Omar, Klan founded by DEMOCRATS. You cannot revise history.
Democrats are also responsible for “Jim Crow” laws, poll taxes and literacy tests.
Why even bother? Omar never reads whole posts, or responds to entire concepts, or even divides his posts so that you can tell who he is rebutting or criticizing at any moment without reading every single post that came before it..
Let’s be clear on this. My reference to countries only supporting us when it is in their interests merely highlights the point that we shouldn’t be basing our policies on what these other countries think.
I don’t think countries should be ignored, however their opinions don’t have to be the reasons why our policies are made.
Once again, you ignore the fact that the UN made 17 resolutions, including one that allowed the use of force to remove Saddam. He did not comply with these resolutions, and even Hans Blix agreed with that when interviewed on “The O’Reilly Factor”. Our own Iraq policy was the removal of Saddam Hussein (signed by Clinton) by force.
The UN condones terrorism in Israel by its outright actions in regards to Arab states. You need only to see the World Court rulings to know that. Calling Rwanda an “African problem” paid little more than lip-service to its condemnations.
The French and Germans have gone further than to just disagree with our course of action. The French and Germans have been complicit in the Oil-for-Food scandal, which gave Saddam millions of dollars to buy weapons (from the French and Russians), pay terrorists, and thumb his nose at the UN resolutions. The French were even supplying Saddam with military technology up to and at the beginning of the current Gulf conflict. These countries don’t just disagree, they have made it their policy to be the anti-American balance in the world. They would be opposed to us regardless of our course of action in Iraq. Jeaque de Villepin is on record as stating this!!!
There is a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. No one has ever claimed that the link existed between Iraq and 9/11. However, they did support each other. I also think the Israelis are happy that Saddam is no longer paying blood money to homicide bombers. Saddam did support terrorism, against us, Israel and our allies. Removing him does help in the war on terror.
Our choice was to remove Saddam, or leave him in place. With his pattern of past behavior, and the Oil-for-Food cash at his disposal, I wouldn’t want to take the risk.
Simply because I differ in opinion from you, Omar, does not make me irrational, nor does it make my arguments irrational.
Get ‘em Chris. On point!
Bravo, Chris! Well done.
‘Sorry Omar, Klan founded by DEMOCRATS. You cannot revise history.’
When did i say they WERENT? Its a fact the Klan was Right wing. Democrat does not equal liberal. Hmmm, i wonder how the large majority of Klan members will be voting this election?
‘Omar never reads whole posts, or responds to entire concepts, or even divides his posts so that you can tell who he is rebutting or criticizing at any moment without reading every single post that came before it.. ‘
Sure. I respond this way to respond to any point thrown at me. Unlike you, i dont ignore points.
‘I don’t think countries should be ignored, however their opinions don’t have to be the reasons why our policies are made.’
Ive said this a thousand times, but you always ignore it. Kerry NEVER said this, or even suggested this. He quite righly said any military action should be justified in hindsight to the global community. Fair enough, since the US expects the same of every other country in the world.
‘He did not comply with these resolutions, and even Hans Blix agreed with that when interviewed on “The O’Reilly Factor”. ‘
Hanz Blix has ALSO said the US undermined the UN by invading before the inspectors were allowed to do their job. So Hanz Blix accepts the fact Iraq ignored UN resolutions. This doesnt mean the US is exempt from doing the same thing.
‘The UN condones terrorism in Israel by its outright actions in regards to Arab states.’
Thats ridiculous. Again, give me an EXAMPLE of this. This is a key area you are lacking in. In pretty much every post in this topic, you have said something COMPLETELY unfactual. As a counter argument, i could say the US condones Israeli terrorism. Even Bush has critisized the gung ho methods of the Palestinians, and thats saying something. Are you aware of the fact the US spends billions of dollars of taxpayer money to prop up Israel? Where is your outrage over this? The Marshall plan was totally wrong, but using huge sums of money to pay for Israel’s defense is perfectly acceptable, right?
‘The French and Germans have been complicit in the Oil-for-Food scandal, which gave Saddam millions of dollars to buy weapons (from the French and Russians), pay terrorists, and thumb his nose at the UN resolutions.’
Again, this is hilarious. You totally disregard the fact that the Reagan administration contributed to Saddam’s military no end, albeit you call it ‘wrong’…yet you continue to slam France and Germany for dealing with him! Unbelievable.
‘The French were even supplying Saddam with military technology up to and at the beginning of the current Gulf conflict.’
Another fact i think you need on. Which country do you think provides the most arms to the Middle East? Answers on a postcard please.
‘There is a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.’
Wrong! ANOTHER lie or Orwellian proportions! The 9/11 Commission proved EXACTLY the opposite! How on earth can people still sprout this inane babble? Even Rumsfeld himself, who imfamously speculated over supposed Al Qaeda and Iraq links has basiacally been forced to admit that what he said wasnt true at all.
‘Saddam did support terrorism, against us, Israel and our allies. Removing him does help in the war on terror.’
You conviniently ignore what i said about thousands of foreign terrorists being drawn into Iraq. Removing his had not only created a new generation of Middle Eastern people that hate the US, it has attracted existing terrorists to the warzone like a magnet.
Omar, re-read the 9/11 commission report. They said that there is no tie between Iraq and 9/11, but they did not deny the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. There WAS an informal working relationship between the two countries.
I did not condone the United States policies towards Iraq. However, we did not work with Iraq in violation of 16 UN resolutions. It was highlighting my point that France and Germany are calling the kettle black by stating that we are undermining the UN.
The UN refuses to condemn countries that give money to and aid terrorist groups such as Hamas, Al Asqa Martyrs Brigade in their assaults on Israel’s sovereign territory. Then they allow these same Arab countries to take Israel to the World Court for putting up a security barrier to keep these homicide bombers out.
Israel has a right to defend its self and pre-emptively seek out and kill terrorists that wreck havoc on their citizens. To compare Israelis to terrorists is apples and oranges. Then to compare us to Iran, Saddam led Iraq, Syria, and Libya and say that we are complicit in aiding terrorism? That is the most outrageous statement I have heard on this site.
I never said the Marshall Plan was wrong. Aiding Germany after the end of the Cold War was wrong. At some point in time they have to learn how to defend themselves. You miss my point.
This is the last post I’ll make on this topic. Omar, I do check my facts. I do not lack in knowledge over this area. It was part of my degree plan in college. What I do have is a difference in opinion in American foreign policy from you. You can call my facts wrong, or disagree with me, but I will never subscribe to the liberal viewpoint. I do my research, and I don’t throw out wild and inane arguments. You would see that by reading my blog. I know better than that. I spend countless hours reading and researching the areas I teach each and every day in my classroom.
‘Omar, re-read the 9/11 commission report. They said that there is no tie between Iraq and 9/11, but they did not deny the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. ‘
Actually, i urge you to read it again.It said there was no tie between Iraq and 9/11, as well as saying there was no tie between Iraq and AL QAEDA. I read it and ill dig out the quote that explicitly says the opposite to what you are. Here you go:
“There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan [in 1996], but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,” the report says. “Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.”
The 9/11 commission also found evidence suggested that Al Qaeda actually funded Kurdish rebels who were FIGHTING Saddam. If you knew anything about Al Qaeda’s form of Fundamentalism, you would know it had nothing in common with Saddam’s secular regime.
‘I did not condone the United States policies towards Iraq. However, we did not work with Iraq in violation of 16 UN resolutions.’
One word. Halliburton. This company did $23.8 million in business with Saddam Hussein, with good old Dich Cheney as CEO.
‘The UN refuses to condemn countries that give money to and aid terrorist groups such as Hamas, Al Asqa Martyrs Brigade in their assaults on Israel’s sovereign territory.’
Want to name a few of them? The UN has condemned both the actions of Palestinian Liberation groups, and the actions of the Israeli state. I also condemn both. You however, condone Israeli terrorism, yet attack Palestinian terrorism.
‘Israel has a right to defend its self and pre-emptively seek out and kill terrorists that wreck havoc on their citizens. ‘
Just like Palestinians have a right to defend themselves, fight for the ability to set up their own state, and remove themselves from the position of oppressed second class citizens.
‘I never said the Marshall Plan was wrong. Aiding Germany after the end of the Cold War was wrong. At some point in time they have to learn how to defend themselves. You miss my point.’
I see your point, but Germany is an economically prosperous country that is being urged by other EU countries to strengthen its military.
‘I do not lack in knowledge over this area.’
You are off on quite a few facts, but nevermind.
‘but I will never subscribe to the liberal viewpoint.’
Im talking facts, not ‘viewpoints.’ I will never subscribe to the Conservative viewpoint either, whats your point? What you should of said was – ‘i will never subscribe to the facts.’
‘I do my research, and I don’t throw out wild and inane arguments.’
Neither do I. I frequently back up what im saying with cited sources. Like the 9/11 commission in this post.
Some food for thought for those opposing the war in Iraq while our troops are at risk:
From the personal memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant:
“Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate ‘war, pestilence, and famine’ than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun. The history of the defeated rebel will be honorable hereafter, compared with that of the Northern man who aided him by conspiring against his government while protected by it. The most favorable posthumous history the stay-at-home traitor can hope for is – oblivion.”
Your support of calling Israel a terrorist nation reeks of Euro-centrist anti-semitism. That nation has been under attack from Arabs since 1948. Palestinians refuse to follow the guidelines set by the Oslo peace accords. Israel seeks to give the Palestnians continued concessions, yet the Palestinians do not come back to the table. The Israelis have no choice but to eliminate those who seek to blow up pizza parlors, shops, and buses with children on them. Your argument comes close to justifying homicide bombings. The Palestinian government’s stated goal is not only a Palestinian state, but the total annihilation of the ‘Zionist’ state. They don’t seek a peace where they co-exist. They want the entire territory to themselves. Where is the UN defending the country they created in 1948?
Haliburton has been cleared of all charges of improper relationships with foreign countries. The charges they face are in accounting. Dick Cheney does not make one red cent off of any of the current Haliburton contracts. He too has been cleared of any wrongdoing or accusations. That smoke screen is so old and worn out. You sound like a John Kerry sound bite.
Collaborative relationship does not eliminate the fact that Iraq and Al Qaeda did offer each other aid at one time or another. Saddam did give financial aid as well as residency to members of Al Qaeda. No one has said anything different than that. No one has ever said that Iraq and Al Qaeda planned any attacks together. Why do you keep bringing that up? Apples and oranges Jeez.
Now I’ve said enough.
‘Your support of calling Israel a terrorist nation reeks of Euro-centrist anti-semitism. ‘
Now you are calling me things that simply arnt true. The Israeli state has taken actions of terrorism, and thats a fact. Assassinations, car bombings, drive by shootings, ethnic cleansing – Israel has done it all. What about the JEWS that condemn the actions of Israel? Are they anti semitic? I am NOT an anti semitic, although i would say im an anti zionist.
‘Palestinians refuse to follow the guidelines set by the Oslo peace accords. ‘
So do Israel. Israel has also failed to comply with well over 100 UN resolutions.
‘ Israel seeks to give the Palestnians continued concessions, yet the Palestinians do not come back to the table.’
I call BS. Israel refuses to recognise any Palestinian leader, instead branding them all as terrorists. The Palestinians have no chance of setting up any political party, despite the fact they outnumber the Israeli’s in the land.
‘The Israelis have no choice but to eliminate those who seek to blow up pizza parlors, shops, and buses with children on them.’
You mean like foreign journalists, little kids sitting infront of windows, and teenagers throwing stones? Its a fact the Israeli army is heavy handed. Many ex Israeli conscripts have come forward in shame of their actions against Palestinian people. Surprise surprise, attempts have been made to silence them. The Palestinians have no choice but to fight for their own human rights, when they cannot achieve anything with Israel politically.
‘Your argument comes close to justifying homicide bombings. ‘
So does yours. You are justifying Israel’s ‘homicide’ helicopter bombings, and Israel’s levelling of entire villages.
‘The Palestinian government’s… ‘
No such a thing exists.
‘Haliburton has been cleared of all charges of improper relationships with foreign countries. ‘
Its a fact Halliburton dealt with the likes of Saddam and Colonel Gaddaffi. Im not saying they were alone in this, but they did.
‘Dick Cheney does not make one red cent off of any of the current Haliburton contracts. ‘
Dich Cheney still receives an estimated $100,000 a year from Haliburton, due to a tax loophole. He received large sums of money from Halliburton as Bush’s running mate in 2000 also.
‘You sound like a John Kerry sound bite.’
Right. And you sound like a George Bush one, and i know which one id prefer to sound like.
‘Collaborative relationship does not eliminate the fact that Iraq and Al Qaeda did offer each other aid at one time or another. ‘
False. Iraq never offered Al Qaeda aid, and Al Qaeda only tried to contact Saddam on one occassion – for permission to set up training camps within Iraq. Saddam never replied. This is as far as the mythical ‘ties’ go. THAT ’smoke screen’ is old and worn out, even Rumsfeld sees it.
‘Saddam did give financial aid as well as residency to members of Al Qaeda. ‘
See the above.
‘No one has ever said that Iraq and Al Qaeda planned any attacks together. ‘
I urge you to take a glance at what Bush and his cabinet were saying at the time. Particuly Rumsfeld.
Left a good life in Great Britain,
Runnin’ from allah ev’ry night and day.
And I never lost one minute of sleepin’,
Worryin’ ’bout the way dhimmi might have been.
DEM lies keep on turnin’,
Proud Omar keep on burnin’,
Trollin’, trollin’, trollin’ on the Corner.
Gleaned a lot of leftist liberal ideas,
Pumped a lot of tripe into New Medias.
But I never found the good side of conservatives,
Til I latched unto a Believer Blog Queen.
DEM lies keep on turnin’,
Proud Omar keep on burnin’,
Trollin’, trollin’, trollin’ on the Corner,
Trollin’, trollin’, trollin’ on the Corner.
If you come down to the Corner,
Bet I gonna tick off people who believe.
I don’t have to worry ’cause I mock [if they got] the ideas,
People on the Corner are happy to give.
DEM lies keep on turnin’,
Proud Omar keep on burnin’.
Trollin’, trollin’, trollin’ on the Corner,
Trollin’, trollin’, trollin’ on the Corner.
Trollin’, trollin’, trollin’ on the Corner,
Trollin’, trollin’, trollin’ on the Corner,
Trollin’, trollin’, trollin’ on the Corner,
Rather cunning Andy. :>
Im flattered.
Andy,
You wuz a poet and we didn’t know it.
Comments on this entry are closed.