Yeah, I thought personal responsibility was part of the Republican platform.
Wait, what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq?
Beats me.
Clearly 9/11 was the work of famously mustachio’d people. And who else is known for their facial hair? Must have been Iraq. QED.
Plus, terrorists.
Or the Mario Brothers.
But the Pixel-American vote is very strong in this country.
You lie. You’re a liar. You cannot even comprehend how much of a liar you are. If you’re a troll, you’re a bad one because the proof is right there, just one page or one click behind this one, staring at you in black and white.
You brought up Clinton first. In fact, you brought up Clinton FIVE times before anyone else bothered to respond. Not the OP. You.
You brought up Clinton’s blow job.
Not the OP. You. And you did it in response to someone talking about the 9/11 commission!
It’s right there. It’s indisputable. We can now go back to the discussion of the OP which, again, had nothing to do with Clinton whatsoever.
Lemme see if I get this thread so far. . .
OP is ranting against GWB because he said he was unprepared for war. Which shows Bush to be on big, gigantic fucking idiot. But we knew this.
Starving Artist jumps in with a . . . but. . . but. . . Clinton! Which, not only had nothing at all to do with the OP but was absolutely wrong and proven so.
After being proven wrong, Starving Artist continues to talk about Clinton and where he put is penis and/or cigar because-- this is totally my conjecture-- at least no one will bad-mouth our fucking idiot president while attention is focused on Clinton’s dick and all the women he ruined with it.
Carol Stream adds her own brand of stupid.
Starving Artist goes to sleep, presumably while hungry.
Thread continues for a while on topic. Blame is spread. President Bush is still a fucking idiot.
A new day dawns. Starving Artist wakes up, sees the thread progressing in a manner that he doesn’t like (on topic and critical of Our Idiot President) and resumes . . . but. . . but. . . Clinton!-ing the thread. Never once acknowledging that he was absolutely wrong in the first place and not once commenting on Bush’s asinine statements.
Have I got it right so far? Let me add that Starving Artist was nice and polite the whole time. Isn’t he the nicest, polite-est Bush Administration fellator ever to post on the SDMB?
Pixel-American? Is Pixie no longer PC (as in 'Did You see that Pixie eat up all those dots?")?
Pixie is passé, but definitely don’t call 'em dotheads.
Biggirl, that was beautiful.
And yes, Starting Artist is definitely the most polite right wing loonball I’ve ever seen.
The potty is gross - you can probably get one of your buddies who has never been around kids either to help with the potty thing though.
Feeding - he knows they need to be fed - they really like Peanut Butter Cups - and those have - like - peanut butter in them - that’s healthy. And if he doesn’t make them eat anything but candy, soda, and maybe a few chocolate covered donuts he’ll be the most popular uncle EVER!
My mother was a pixellated-American you son of a bitch! Pistols at dawn!
-Joe
Yeah, the PVS community* gets really shirty about language like that.
*Pixel-Vector-Sprite
Well, al Qaeda had been in parts of Iraq that were out of Saddam’s control for decades prior to 9/11.
I recently saw a bumper sticker:
I am afraid the Starving Idiot may be in the same boat.
You know, this is the lamest attempt at a tu qoque that I’ve ever seen.
Even if Starving Artist were right, and it’s all Bill Clinton’s fault that we didn’t catch Bin Ladin it would still be irrelevant. Even if Bill Clinton were a shitty president that doesn’t mean that Bush isn’t a shitty president, or a shittier president, or the shittiest president.
If you want to defend Bush’s record, you should concentrate on Bush, not Clinton. Clinton’s record is irrelevant.
Now, let’s talk about Bush’s record. I can’t blame him for 9/11 because that’s just one of those things, you know? Maybe if Bush had been a better administrator or had appointed better people something could have been done. But not stopping 9/11 isn’t a mark of an incompetant president, just a mediocre one.
What marks Bush as a shitty president is his handling of the Iraq war, his approval of torture, and presiding over the financial meltdown.
It’s one thing to be taken by suprise by 9/11 and fumbling a bit. Perfectly normal, really. It’s another thing to be taken by suprise that invading and occupying Iraq turns out to be, you know, difficult. It would be one thing if Bush had no choice and was compelled to invade Iraq regardless of how hard it would be. But that’s not what happened, Bush decided it would be a good idea to invade Iraq and then sat around for five years while Iraq went up in flames before finally allowing the grownups to take over.
And, you know, authorizing torture. As in, literally (literally literally, not figuratively literally) copying the torture methods used in Stalinist Russia’s Gulag archipelago. And the most pathetic part of the torture scandal is that torture has been completely ineffective. Torture worked for Stalin, because all he wanted was for the prisoners to sign a confession before he had them executed. If we just want the detainees at Gitmo to sign a confession before we execute them, then torturing them would make sense. But we supposedly want to actually try them for crimes, we want to get actionable intelligence out of them. And torture has made both those things impossible, we’re going to have to either release almost everyone at Gitmo or detain them indefinately without charges, and we pretty much learned nothing from them, mostly because most of the people at Gitmo weren’t terrorists or even Taliban soldiers.
I seriously doubt that “the world leaders” cluelessly looked at Bush like a bunch of kids, and then went to war with the “leader of the free world”, whom they trusted.
Rather like a bunch of guys in school going: “Damn, now that bully has a gun!”
And then made strategic decisions, like:
Denmark: “We must do as the deranged man with the gun tells us to do! Otherwise we are with the terrorists!”
England: “Anyhow, we want a piece of that cake!”
France: “This is a crime against international law and we will not join this madness.”
Not quite.
The “parts of Iraq that were out of Saddam’s control” were only out of his control for a bit less than one decade and al Qaida did not move into the Northern section for a couple of years after the U.S. forced Iraq to pull back from the region.
It remains true, of course, that Iraq played no role in the WTC/Pentagon attacks which were later used as a rationalization to foment an unnecessary war that violated Bush’s own claims that the U.S. should not engage in “nation building,” (even if it was attempted so poorly that he could have justifiably claimed that we (inadvertantly) did not actually engage in nation building in Iraq).
I was referring to the al Qaeda-supported rebels that had been in northern Iraq since at least 1984.