Re: Let's review, shall we?

Bill Sornson said:

Even CNN's /lead/ was: "ABOARD USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CNN) -- President Bush
on Thursday praised the toppling of Saddam Hussein as "a job well done," but
he warned that the battle in Iraq was but "one victory in a war on terror."

The only problem is that it was not a victory, nor was it a battle in
the war on terror.

Quoted message said:

Then they went on to explain that the banner -- put up by the crew, not the
admin --

I _do_ believe that it was put up by the ship's crew- at the
instructions of the White House.

Quoted message said:

referred to this: "The ship will arrive in San Diego on Friday
after a 10-month deployment, including service in the Iraq and Afghanistan
war theaters."

Yeah, those sailors' homecoming, after ten months of constant danger
away from their loved ones, was delayed by a day so that Bush could
stage his photo-op.

Quoted message said:

Its mission WAS accomplished (pesky little fact).

We all know what was meant by that sign. We don't need you to try to
rationalize it with your insulting absurdity after the fact. Bush
himself in his speech on the ship that day declared an end to major
combat operations. On that day there had been approximately 176
Americans troops killed in action in Iraq. Since then, another 2,500+
have died, and hundreds more are going to die. So spare me the
[censored].

Quoted message said:

And of course Bush wasn't the only one to say there'd be trouble and
hardship ahead: "Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, said she believes the
hardest work is yet to come in securing Iraq, getting its economy going and
providing a stable environment for the new government. 'I interpret this as
a major statement that the coalition, in fact, will remain until the country
is safe and stable, and until a government is elected and able to survive.
And that's good news, I think,' she said."

Let the Feinstein Bashing begin! LOL

NP. Are you saying that because Feinstein was wrong it excuses Bush,
and you, and the 30-odd % of Americans that still support the war to
continue wasting our troops lives in the hopeless pursuit of the Neocon
pipe dream?

landotter said:

...
Your government, not mine, voted to suspend habeus corpus yesterday.
Your government voted in favor of torture....

What do you expect, a world with justice? Powerful criminals rarely get
punished, unless they are on the losing end of a war. Almost all will
die peacefully in bed at an old age.

The meek WILL NOT inherit the earth, and the strong will continue to
live it up on fruits of the labors of others.

For most, life is rotten, and then they die. As it was, is, and likely
will always be until we become extinct.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Even CNN's /lead/ was: "ABOARD USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CNN) -- President Bush
on Thursday praised the toppling of Saddam Hussein as "a job well done," but
he warned that the battle in Iraq was but "one victory in a war on terror."

The only problem is that it was not a victory, nor was it a battle in
the war on terror.

Quoted message said:

Then they went on to explain that the banner -- put up by the crew, not the
admin --

I _do_ believe that it was put up by the ship's crew- at the
instructions of the White House.

Quoted message said:

referred to this: "The ship will arrive in San Diego on Friday
after a 10-month deployment, including service in the Iraq and Afghanistan
war theaters."

Yeah, those sailors' homecoming, after ten months of constant danger
away from their loved ones, was delayed by a day so that Bush could
stage his photo-op.

Quoted message said:

Its mission WAS accomplished (pesky little fact).

We all know what was meant by that sign. We don't need you to try to
rationalize it with your insulting absurdity after the fact. Bush
himself in his speech on the ship that day declared an end to major
combat operations. On that day there had been approximately 176
Americans troops killed in action in Iraq. Since then, another 2,500+
have died, and hundreds more are going to die. So spare me the
[censored].

Quoted message said:

And of course Bush wasn't the only one to say there'd be trouble and
hardship ahead: "Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, said she believes the
hardest work is yet to come in securing Iraq, getting its economy going and
providing a stable environment for the new government. 'I interpret this as
a major statement that the coalition, in fact, will remain until the country
is safe and stable, and until a government is elected and able to survive.
And that's good news, I think,' she said."

Let the Feinstein Bashing begin! LOL

NP. Are you saying that because Feinstein was wrong it excuses Bush,
and you, and the 30-odd % of Americans that still support the war to
continue wasting our troops lives in the hopeless pursuit of the Neocon
pipe dream?

The Neocon oilpipe dream.....

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

I said, in a post on Mar 31, 2003:

Quoted message said:

>I stated in this forum that I had a bad feeling about this war,
>said feeling being derived from an observation that there was no
>reason to expect that the Bush administration would be any more
>competent at war than it was at anything else, and sadly I have
>been proven right.<<

Wow, and that was 3 1/2 years ago, right after the war started and
before Bush had declared victory in his silly pilot outfit on the deck
of an aircraft carrier off the US coast.

Even CNN's /lead/ was: "ABOARD USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CNN) -- President Bush
on Thursday praised the toppling of Saddam Hussein as "a job well done," but
he warned that the battle in Iraq was but "one victory in a war on terror."

Funny that the war in Iraq hasn't don't a single thing to thwart terror.
In fact, WE'RE WORSE OFF NOW!

"The war in Iraq has made global terrorism worse by fanning Islamic
radicalism and providing a training ground for lethal methods that are
increasingly being exported to other countries, according to a sweeping
assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies.
The classified document, which represents a consensus view of all 16
U.S. intelligence agencies, paints a considerably bleaker picture of the
impact of the Iraq war than Bush administration ... officials have
acknowledged..."

So, not only was there no WMDs in Iraq but our great president is
breeding terrorism. Nice.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

G.T. said:

So, not only was there no WMDs in Iraq but our great president is
breeding terrorism. Nice.

I get the idea that if the WH called Bill up and asked him to come to
D.C. and fellate the POTUS, he'd do it in a second.

Maybe he thinks that GWB walks on water, too.

E.P.

Quoted message said:

Funny that the war in Iraq hasn't don't a single thing to thwart terror.
In fact, WE'RE WORSE OFF NOW!

It would be sweet if we could all just go back to 9/10, wouldn't it?
Fact is, we can't. We ignored them and ignored them and ignored them,
hoping that by pretending they weren't there, then, by golly, they
weren't! Worked for a while, but then that 'silly little incident'
that killed 3000 innocent Americans occurred. I suspect, you will try
to write this off as irrelevant, as it seems to get in the way of your
diatribe. Unfortunately, my fellow American, we are in a situation
where we need to pick the non-worst of all possible situations (Notice
I did not say the 'best of all possible...", as none of the choices are
rosey). In your heart of hearts, do you really believe that we would
be better off now had we not entered Iraq? Keep in mind, I did NOT say
"Are we better off than we were on 9/12 had we not entered Iraq?". I
am asking you to honestly look at the big picture and say that a
scenario that did not involve Iraq would have the U.S.A., today,
9/30/2006, in a better situation that we currently are... If you truly
are honest with yourself, you will realize that, yes, terror is more
prevalent, but it would be significantly more prevalent had we not
engaged ourselves in Iraq.

On 30 Sep 2006 12:56:36 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

G.T. said:

So, not only was there no WMDs in Iraq but our great president is
breeding terrorism. Nice.

I get the idea that if the WH called Bill up and asked him to come to
D.C. and fellate the POTUS, he'd do it in a second.

Yeah, but Sorni would also tell us about the pesky fact that Clinton
got people to give him blowjobs too.

Quoted message said:

Maybe he thinks that GWB walks on water, too.

He has to be convinced that GWB is infallible, because otherwise his
house of cards comes tumbling down. It's the same reason that Bush
can completely disagree with the recent NIE on the impact of the Iraq
war on terror. He *has* to deny it -- anything less is admitting the
last five years of his rule have been a disaster.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Jim said:

Quoted message said:

Funny that the war in Iraq hasn't don't a single thing to thwart terror.
In fact, WE'RE WORSE OFF NOW!

It would be sweet if we could all just go back to 9/10, wouldn't it?
Fact is, we can't. We ignored them and ignored them and ignored them,
hoping that by pretending they weren't there, then, by golly, they
weren't! Worked for a while, but then that 'silly little incident'
that killed 3000 innocent Americans occurred. I suspect, you will try
to write this off as irrelevant, as it seems to get in the way of your
diatribe. Unfortunately, my fellow American, we are in a situation
where we need to pick the non-worst of all possible situations (Notice
I did not say the 'best of all possible...", as none of the choices are
rosey). In your heart of hearts, do you really believe that we would
be better off now had we not entered Iraq?

Your problem is that your heart rules your head. It's fine for you but
the people in charge had better try to apply some reason to running the
country. Anyone with any understanding of the geopolitics of the Middle
East and military affairs knows that we are somewhere between
considerably worse off and much, much, much worse off as a result of
invading Iraq. The damage has been incalculable; we will be lucky to
survive as a superpower. In fact, I would say that the result of Iraq
has already been to bring us down to a level where we can no longer be
called a "hyperpower". We have revealed our limits. Our influence has
been clearly lessened. In the Middle East and elsewhere, the EU wields
more influence than we do. The problem is not that we have no
influence, is that everyone knows that we don't know how to use it, and
they look to other countries that they know are more likely to at least
attempt to provide workable solutions.

Quoted message said:

Keep in mind, I did NOT say
"Are we better off than we were on 9/12 had we not entered Iraq?". I
am asking you to honestly look at the big picture and say that a
scenario that did not involve Iraq would have the U.S.A., today,
9/30/2006, in a better situation that we currently are... If you truly
are honest with yourself, you will realize that, yes, terror is more
prevalent, but it would be significantly more prevalent had we not
engaged ourselves in Iraq.

I believe in my "heart of hearts" that Bin Laden (and/or his followers)
is still out there somewhere along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border
trying to figure out a way to nuke us, while we idiotically fart around
in Iraq, destroying our own military power, putting the US treasury
into huge debt and frittering away our international prestige. Christ,
we have played into Bin Laden's hands beyond his wildest dreams. I
don't believe that he ever could have expected us to respond so
stupidly and so blinded by emotion, to his attack. (Of course, it's not
Bush and the Neocons who are blinded by emotion- it's you- they take
advantage of it to have their way with you.)

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

landotter said:

...
Your government, not mine, voted to suspend habeus corpus yesterday.
Your government voted in favor of torture....

Gee, I'm sorry I plonked THAT liar. {sarcams mode tubless viola}

Torture is cutting off a screaming person's head.

Torture is cutting off hands or feet or fingers or worse.

Torture is burning someone with cigarettes or electrical wires.

Torture is poking out an eye (or both).

Loud music and bright lights ain't torture. (Water-boarding, which most US
agents undergo as part of their training, is specifically prohibited.)

As for HC, take it up with Lincoln...

G.T. said:

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

I said, in a post on Mar 31, 2003:

>> I stated in this forum that I had a bad feeling about this war,
>> said feeling being derived from an observation that there was no
>> reason to expect that the Bush administration would be any more
>> competent at war than it was at anything else, and sadly I have
>> been proven right.<<

Wow, and that was 3 1/2 years ago, right after the war started and
before Bush had declared victory in his silly pilot outfit on the
deck of an aircraft carrier off the US coast.

Even CNN's /lead/ was: "ABOARD USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CNN) --
President Bush on Thursday praised the toppling of Saddam Hussein as
"a job well done," but he warned that the battle in Iraq was but
"one victory in a war on terror."

Funny that the war in Iraq hasn't don't a single thing to thwart
terror. In fact, WE'RE WORSE OFF NOW!

"The war in Iraq has made global terrorism worse by fanning Islamic
radicalism and providing a training ground for lethal methods that are
increasingly being exported to other countries, according to a
sweeping assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies.
The classified document, which represents a consensus view of all 16
U.S. intelligence agencies, paints a considerably bleaker picture of
the impact of the Iraq war than Bush administration ... officials have
acknowledged..."

So, not only was there no WMDs in Iraq but our great president is
breeding terrorism. Nice.

Even your cherry-picked leaked item has a lie in its description of what the
NIE is.

Nice.

Ed Pirrero said:

G.T. said:

So, not only was there no WMDs in Iraq but our great president is
breeding terrorism. Nice.

I get the idea that if the WH called Bill up and asked him to come to
D.C. and fellate the POTUS, he'd do it in a second.

Typical Ed.

Overdue plonk.

Jim said:

Quoted message said:

Funny that the war in Iraq hasn't don't a single thing to thwart terror.
In fact, WE'RE WORSE OFF NOW!

It would be sweet if we could all just go back to 9/10, wouldn't it?
Fact is, we can't. We ignored them and ignored them and ignored them,
hoping that by pretending they weren't there, then, by golly, they
weren't! Worked for a while, but then that 'silly little incident'
that killed 3000 innocent Americans occurred. I suspect, you will try
to write this off as irrelevant, as it seems to get in the way of your
diatribe. Unfortunately, my fellow American, we are in a situation
where we need to pick the non-worst of all possible situations (Notice
I did not say the 'best of all possible...", as none of the choices are
rosey). In your heart of hearts, do you really believe that we would
be better off now had we not entered Iraq?

HELL YES!

Quoted message said:

Keep in mind, I did NOT say
"Are we better off than we were on 9/12 had we not entered Iraq?". I
am asking you to honestly look at the big picture and say that a
scenario that did not involve Iraq would have the U.S.A., today,
9/30/2006, in a better situation that we currently are... If you truly
are honest with yourself, you will realize that, yes, terror is more
prevalent, but it would be significantly more prevalent had we not
engaged ourselves in Iraq.

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE REALITY!

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

Jim said:

Quoted message said:

Funny that the war in Iraq hasn't don't a single thing to thwart terror.
In fact, WE'RE WORSE OFF NOW!

It would be sweet if we could all just go back to 9/10, wouldn't it?
Fact is, we can't.

Nice dodge.

The point of the person you quoted is that we'd be better of now if we
hadn't invaded Iraq at all. It's not about 9/11 version 9/10. It's
about specific mistakes the Bush administration has made that have
made the US and people around the world less safe than if the US had
not invaded Iraq.

The highest costs of these mistakes are being born by the Iraqi people
and the US military and their families. The cost to the average
person in the US at the moment are not that hight, apart from slightly
higher gas prices. Bush and Congress have done a pretty good job at
insulating the US public from the economic costs of the war ($250
million PER DAY) but the deficits being created are going to hurt US
taxpayers in the future.

Oh yeah, I forgot one big cost we're getting today -- steady erosion
of civil rights.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

landotter said:

...
Your government, not mine, voted to suspend habeus corpus yesterday.
Your government voted in favor of torture....

Gee, I'm sorry I plonked THAT liar. {sarcams mode tubless viola}

Torture is cutting off a screaming person's head.

Torture is cutting off hands or feet or fingers or worse.

Torture is burning someone with cigarettes or electrical wires.

Torture is poking out an eye (or both).

Loud music and bright lights ain't torture. (Water-boarding, which most US
agents undergo as part of their training, is specifically prohibited.)

Sornson is a willfully ignorant idiot if he does not understand
psychological torture. Or maybe he is so insensitive that nothing
bothers him, except not getting his way.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

Bill Sornson said:

Ed Pirrero said:

G.T. said:

So, not only was there no WMDs in Iraq but our great president is
breeding terrorism. Nice.

I get the idea that if the WH called Bill up and asked him to come to
D.C. and fellate the POTUS, he'd do it in a second.

Typical Ed.

Overdue plonk.

It hurts because it's true. Probably not literally, but it's very true
metaphorically.

Sorni claims to be an open-minded conservative with libertarian
leanings. But he repeatedly defends the most authoritatarian president
since Nixon and probably since, well, ever, and certainly the most
profligate Republican in terms of spending. Some conservative with
libertarian leanings he is.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Bill Sornson said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

landotter said:

...
Your government, not mine, voted to suspend habeus corpus yesterday.
Your government voted in favor of torture....

Loud music and bright lights ain't torture. (Water-boarding, which most US
agents undergo as part of their training, is specifically prohibited.)

Really? People smarter than you disagree.

E.P.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

landotter wrote:
> ...
> Your government, not mine, voted to suspend habeus corpus yesterday.
> Your government voted in favor of torture....

Gee, I'm sorry I plonked THAT liar. {sarcams mode tubless viola}

Torture is cutting off a screaming person's head.

Torture is cutting off hands or feet or fingers or worse.

Torture is burning someone with cigarettes or electrical wires.

Torture is poking out an eye (or both).

Loud music and bright lights ain't torture. (Water-boarding, which most US
agents undergo as part of their training, is specifically prohibited.)

Sornson is a willfully ignorant idiot if he does not understand
psychological torture. Or maybe he is so insensitive that nothing
bothers him, except not getting his way.

Yup. What separates "us" from "them" is how we treat our fellow human.
No matter how heinous that other person acts.

Bill is still in that child-like stage that thinks that somehow the
ends justify the means. Talk about your moral relativism...

E.P.

Ed Pirrero said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Bill Sornson said:

> landotter wrote:
>> ...
>> Your government, not mine, voted to suspend habeus corpus yesterday.
>> Your government voted in favor of torture....

Gee, I'm sorry I plonked THAT liar. {sarcams mode tubless viola}

Torture is cutting off a screaming person's head.

Torture is cutting off hands or feet or fingers or worse.

Torture is burning someone with cigarettes or electrical wires.

Torture is poking out an eye (or both).

Loud music and bright lights ain't torture. (Water-boarding, which most US
agents undergo as part of their training, is specifically prohibited.)

Sornson is a willfully ignorant idiot if he does not understand
psychological torture. Or maybe he is so insensitive that nothing
bothers him, except not getting his way.

Yup. What separates "us" from "them" is how we treat our fellow human.
No matter how heinous that other person acts.

Bill is still in that child-like stage that thinks that somehow the
ends justify the means. Talk about your moral relativism...

It is also just plain stupid. What better recruiting tool for those
that hate the US could there be than the US torturing Muslims at
Baghram, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, especially when many of them
are guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong
time?

Of course actions like sending Canadian citizen Mahar Arar to Syria to
be locked in a coffin sized closet for months and only let out for
beatings with an electrical cable, or sending German citizen Khaled al
Masri to be tortured in Afghanistan for four months is sure to "win
friends and influence people" for the US all over the world.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Ed Pirrero said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> > landotter wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Your government, not mine, voted to suspend habeus corpus yesterday.
> >> Your government voted in favor of torture....
>
> Gee, I'm sorry I plonked THAT liar. {sarcams mode tubless viola}
>
> Torture is cutting off a screaming person's head.
>
> Torture is cutting off hands or feet or fingers or worse.
>
> Torture is burning someone with cigarettes or electrical wires.
>
> Torture is poking out an eye (or both).
>
> Loud music and bright lights ain't torture. (Water-boarding, which most US
> agents undergo as part of their training, is specifically prohibited.)

Sornson is a willfully ignorant idiot if he does not understand
psychological torture. Or maybe he is so insensitive that nothing
bothers him, except not getting his way.

Yup. What separates "us" from "them" is how we treat our fellow human.
No matter how heinous that other person acts.

Bill is still in that child-like stage that thinks that somehow the
ends justify the means. Talk about your moral relativism...

It is also just plain stupid. What better recruiting tool for those
that hate the US could there be than the US torturing Muslims at
Baghram, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, especially when many of them
are guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong
time?

Of course actions like sending Canadian citizen Mahar Arar to Syria to
be locked in a coffin sized closet for months and only let out for
beatings with an electrical cable, or sending German citizen Khaled al
Masri to be tortured in Afghanistan for four months is sure to "win
friends and influence people" for the US all over the world.

I'm sure Bill wouldn't mind that sort of treatment - after all, it's
not torture.

To any thinking person, it's torture, but not Bill...

E.P.