Based on what? All them A-rabs look alike?
Burden of proof is on you, Shodan.
Wow. That is a well thought-out position on the matter.
Or how about from the horse’s mouth?
Googling will reveal additional sources till your heart is content.
Thanks.
So now we’re trusting what Osama says?
The strongest “link” between them is that they are both Islamic fundamentalist terrorist asshats. Sure, they support each other. I doubt they’re interacting and plotting together.
Zarqawi has recently declared his group to be the Iraqi branch of Al Qaeda. That was *not * true at the time of the invasion, in which his camp was in the US/UK-protected area of northern Iraq.
“the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north of that somewhat” is the entire friggin’ country. Any reason to think Rummy knew what he said he knew, loyalists? Any reason at all?
Then I stand corrected. They’re opening up branch offices now. War on Terror is going great!
The War Against Terror, (as apparently bought to us by The Keystone Cops) please. A much more accurate acronym.
Actually, it was second- or third-hand, and you still haven’t provided an original cite.
My laziness, Mr. Unattributed Quote?
Not yet. I am waiting for a link to validate your original claim.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - Hi, Brutus.
Today is a truly humble day for me, for I stand corrected yet again. Shame is upon my family.
/seppuku
O_o
I gave you a name and a publication along with that quote, you know. What do you want, a plane ticket to meet the guy? Time travel machine to see him actually say it?
Are you so in denial that you won’t even admit that someone said something?
PS - Hi, elucidator, can I pick you up at 8?
You realize that none of this retroactively justifies the invasion, do you not? It matters not one shit what al Qaeda does now. At the time your criminal president lied his way into Iraq, there was no AQ presence in Iraq and no connection between OBL and Hussein. Your neocon overlords tried very hard to convince you that there WAS a connection but of course they were lying.
And thus the gulf between the legal world and the real world. Behave like that in your everyday commerce with your peers and they’ll think you’re a lying, two-faced, shiftless piece of shit who will say anything to anyone to achieve their goal.
In the criminal justice sytem advocates are explicitly understood to be acting in the narrow band of the best interestes of their client. Spinning, half-truths, misleading statements, these are the tools of the trade. That doesn’t mean these are good behaviors. This behavior is accepted as a necessary evil because the same weapons are in the hands of the other advocate and it behooves the system to allow both fighters the same type of gloves.
A President is not an advocate. No one paid him to advance the case for war. In fact it would be a reasonable interpretation of his job to be an advocate for peace. If there were conflicting reports from experts, say about aluminum tubes, then it advances the cause for war to pick the one Bush did. If you truly believe it was his job to advocate for war and to mislead his constituency in support of that goal then we have very different views of what it means to be President of the US.
Enjoy,
Steven
I take it, then, that you have equally harsh criticism for the way FDR lied to the public and Congress to edge us into WWII?
If you do, I accept that we simply have different views of what the President’s role should be. If you applaud FDR and impugn Bush, then I think you need to distinguish the cases.
Wow, this pervasive view on the right that the War in Iraq and World War II are equivalent is kind of scary.
The distinction is rather easy. I wasn’t born during FDR’s term and I am a voting-age citizen during Bush’s. I also don’t typically temper my approbation of Bush policies with applause or criticism of the actions of Emperor Caligula. There is simply no reason to do so. Please show relevance if you wish to continue this witch hunt of yours for some hipocracy on the part of those who oppose Bush’s actions.
FDR did a lot of shitty stuff. I would have opposed him on those grounds had I been alive during his time in office. Betrayal of public trust by advocating war when the job is to advocate/preserve the peace and prosperity of the nation is not what I appreciate in Presidents.
In the meantime, we should get back to the actual current topic of discussion. Tell me why you belive it acceptable for the President to be an advocate for pre-emptive war(which was also a distinction between FDR and Bush. Joining the fray and initiating the fray are very different things). Please note that as an advocate for war it becomes acceptable, in your definition for an advocate, to present half-truths, misleading statements, etc. as long as given some level of parsing, sometimes quite tortured, the statement’s truth value is not clearly false.
Enjoy,
Steven
Cmon Bricker
They are complete opposites.
FDR took our country out of depression. GW took a Federal surplus and not only spent it all but has put us into the biggest deficit in history.FDR met with world leaders and resisted going to war eventhough I’m not sure he didn’t favor it. GWB ignored world leaders.
There was no doubt that Hitler, we won’t discuss japan, had the weaponry.Saddam didn’t have shit.
You’re serious, aren’t you? I’m afraid that if you’re serious, there’s no possible way I can communicate this with you, but I’ll try once more.
Yes, al-Qaeda != all terrorists. Not all terrorists are al-Qaeda. HOWEVER, that’s got nothing to do with what Cheney said. Cheney said, “If we’re successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.”
al-Qaeda!=all terrorists. al-Qaeda DOES = the terrorists who “had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” No terrorist group whose “geographic base” was in Iraq had us under assault for many years, most especially not on 9/11.
As I said, it does not come out and say, “Iraq was responsible for 9/11.” However, the implication is absolutely obvious, and only the most tortured grammatical parsing can explain that in any way except that success in Iraq strikes a blow at the terrorists who assaulted us on 9/11.
If it pleases you to allow such tortured and misleading syntax on the part of the president during an effort to get us to back a war, that’s your business. But it is bizarre to act as if the implication isn’t there.
Daniel
I knew FDR. FDR was a good friend of mine…
Daniel
Bush lies:
No. Really.
He says that African Americans lose out in the SS system compared to whites.
This is utter bullshit, with errors so badn and so obvious that they could only be intentional:
And that doesn’t even factor in the fact that the “early death rate” of African Americans is mostly made up of things like early infant death rate, which has no effect on the system (babies don’t pay in, so they don’t get gipped out of paying out, yet they are included in this bogus calculation).
A deficit is not a depression. And FDR also left us in a deeper deficit than when he started.
Um… what?
FDR “resisted” only in the sense that US opinion was staunchly against it. He wanted to go to war, and he manipulated events to cause US opinion to come around.
Yes, GWB ignored world leaders who counseled appeasement. FDR ignored world leaders who counseled appeasement. GWB agreed with world leaders who wanted military action. FDR agreed with world leaders who wanted militray action.
But Hitler never attacked us.
Okay…so are we on the “Bush=FDR” topic because the original topic has been settled to everyone’s satisfaction, or is this more of a “Look, a three-headed monkey!” phenomenon? Cuz frankly, I ain’t seeing the strong parallels between Bush and FDR.
Daniel