Listening to GWB talk about Iraq, the “world’s newest democracy”, and I’m thinking - yeah, thank to the US, the world’s newest theocracy.
Well, in my experience walls don’t call other people “fucko”, but maybe I just haven’t been talking to the right walls.
Anyway, two important things to remember about Brutus: a) in his view, no criticism of GWB is, or should be, permitted, especially by damn furriners; 2) this oughta-be illegal criticism is in fact a personal insult to Brutus himself and thus uniformly requires a ritualized, hostile, spluttering response. I don’t think he’s ever given a coherent explanation as to why he takes what people say about Bush so very personally, and maybe someday he will, but frankly I’m not holding my breath.
No, no. It is more like talking to a shit smear left in the potty. Not only are you not likely to make any meaningful conversation with it, it’s even more crazy than talking to the wall and there is a greater element of disgust involved in the whole endeavor.
Dag nabbit! Of course, my post above was in reference to DarkSideoftheFloyd’s post likening talking with Brutus to talking with a wall.
To be summed up susinctly:
TROLL.
Umm… You know that’s against the laws of the Dope, right? You may want to go suck up to a mod PDQ.
What a bastard! Next, the asshole will talk about something truly horrible like love and compassion.
Those goddamn Republicans, with their talk of peace and freedom. When will they learn that tyrants are people too?
Not Repulicans, any moron that talks about one thing yet whose actions seem to be having the opposite effect. He talks of peace and safety for the US, yet he’s put us in a far more vulnerable position. It’s called talking out of your ass, something Bush is a master of. I’m just amazed that people actually believe him.
<shrug>
Whoops, sorry, my bad. I humbly accept any pennance that may be placed upon my shoulders for this action.
Yes, indeed.
Peace is War.
Freedom is Slavery.
Love is Hate.
Just ask George!
I think your argument was somewhat lacking.
It’s certainly conceded now that there are and were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The administration’s point is, as far as I understand it, twofold: (1) We reasonably relied on intelligence information that seemed solid at the time, although ultimately it turned out to be wrong, and (2) the removal of Hussein from power in Iraq was a worthwhile goal in any event.
Now, there is certainly a wealth of debate to be had in those two propositions. But there is no real debate in saying, “Ah ha! There are no WMDs!” This is true, and conceded, and replied to as above.
For this reason, I’d say your argument was somewhat lacking. The underlying premise is certainly debatable, of course, but not quite by the route you proposed.
And this is - I hope - a reasoned response from a “rightie.” 
- Rick
Pshaw! Debate? They created the OSP specifically to cherry pick intel because the CIA couldn’t deliver a smoking gun. There was nothing reasonable and even less that was credible. We knew the intel wasn’t solid, and we didn’t care. And now hundreds of American troops are dead, and thousands are maimed. And damnit, Republican or Democrat, American citizens should hold the damn government accountable.
I know you have some sort of evidence for the claim that they created the OSP specifically to cherry pick intel because the CIA couldn’t deliver a smoking gun, right?
Because I think you made it up, or repeated it from someone else who made it up.
I hereby sentence you to toss Brutus’ salad. 
And a citizen of New Zealand is supposed to do what about the United States President, exactly? Not vote for him?
The solution for someone who has absolutely no say whatsoever in who the President of the United States is would be to not listen to his speeches. Especially if they’re making that person extremely upset.
Unfortuantely I can’t search the dope for “OSP” as it’s too few letters. I’m actually surprised you haven’t heard this story Bricker, nobody’s making anything up, you were just unaware of it I guess.
[“2. The Office of Special Plans
This new intelligence agency was set up in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks by US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Frustrated by the failure of conventional spying organisations such as the CIA to come up with proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was linked to Osama bin Laden, the OSP cherry-picked intelligence from mountains of raw data to build the intelligence picture its political masters required.”
[/quote]
[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1175790,00.html]“RC: Certainly. The people in Rumsfeld’s office and in Wolfowitz’s operation cherry-picked intelligence to select the intelligence to support their views. They never did the due diligence on the intelligence that professional intelligence analysts are trained to do. [The OSP] would go through the intelligence reports including the ones that the CIA was throwing out. They stitched it together they would send it out, send it over to Cheney. All the stuff that a professional would have thrown out. As soon as 9/11 happened people like Rumsfeld saw it was opportunity. During that first week after September 11, the decision was made. It was confirmed by president We should do Afghanistan first. But the resources necessary to do a good job in Afghanistan were withheld. There was not enough to go in fast, to go in enough to secure the country. Troops were held back. There were 11,000 troops in Afghanistan. There were fewer in whole country than police in the borough of Manhattan”](http://www.sundayherald.com/34271)
There are others too, go find 'em.
Bricker did you watch Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN? Was that not the most pathetic thing you’ve ever seen?
Don’t give us this “hey the intel said he had them, we were just following along” bullshit. A lot, and I mean a lot of people were not convinced of the intel before we invaded. When I saw Powell at the UN, I knew we were grasping for straws.
I dunno, I’ve never been in a situation where I was a citizen of one of the smaller nations in a general group (Western Democracies) who were led by a superpower, which had once been respected and loved, and which was now led by someone I perceived to be a lying, idiotic, chimp. I bet, though, that if I was, it would REALLY piss me off, and I might, gee, I dunno, RANT ABOUT IT?
Oh, and Bricker, that’s a quite reasonable argument. And if the administration made it, you know, came on TV and said “yeah, we made some serious blunders, and the original reasons we gave for the war turned out to be wrong. We apologize for that, and take responsibility for it, and here are the corrective measures we’re taking. However, we honestly believed we were doing the right thing, and we also believe that Iraq is better off now that Saddam is gone…” or something like that, well, I’m not saying I’d be HAPPY but I’d sure have a lot more respect for them, and for their supporters. But instead, they just seem to ignore any previous justification given for the war, and concentrate on whichever one is au courrant.
(And that’s not even getting IN to the argument of whether or not they DID honestly believe, with due diligence, that there were WMDs, because if they did, then they were incompetent, and if they didn’t, then they were dishonest.)
Fixed links.
Wow. Once again the left-wingers display the spirit of tolerence, inclusiveness, and understanding of the “world community.”
I guess multiculturalism and dialogue only count when you agree with them. :rolleyes: